Pannipa Suwannasom1, Yohei Sotomi2, Yuki Ishibashi3, Rafael Cavalcante3, Felipe N Albuquerque4, Carlos Macaya5, John A Ormiston6, Jonathan Hill7, Irene M Lang8, Mohaned Egred9, Jean Fajadet10, Maciej Lesiak11, Jan G Tijssen2, Joanna J Wykrzykowska2, Robbert J de Winter2, Bernard Chevalier12, Patrick W Serruys13, Yoshinobu Onuma3. 1. ThoraxCenter, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Northern Region Heart Center, Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 2. Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. ThoraxCenter, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York. 5. Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain. 6. Green Lane Cardiovascular Service, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 7. King's College Hospital, London, England. 8. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine II, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 9. Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, England. 10. Department of Cardiology, Pasteur Hospital, Toulouse, France. 11. 1st Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Poznan, Poland. 12. Institut Jacques Cartier, Massy, France. 13. International Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, England. Electronic address: patrick.w.j.c.serruys@pwserruys.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to investigate the relationship between post-procedural asymmetry, expansion, and eccentricity indices of metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and their respective impact on clinical events at 1-year follow-up. BACKGROUND: Mechanical properties of a fully BVS are inherently different from those of permanent metallic stent. METHODS: The ABSORB II (A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions) trial compared the BVS and metallic EES in the treatment of a de novo coronary artery stenosis. Protocol-mandated intravascular ultrasound imaging was performed pre- and post-procedure in 470 patients (162 metallic EES and 308 BVS). Asymmetry index (AI) was calculated per lesion as: (1 - minimum scaffold/stent diameter/maximum scaffold/stent diameter). Expansion index and optimal scaffold/stent expansion followed the definition of the MUSIC (Multicenter Ultrasound Stenting in Coronaries) study. Eccentricity index (EI) was calculated as the ratio of minimum and maximum scaffold/stent diameter per cross section. The incidence of device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE) was collected. RESULTS: Post-procedure, the metallic EES group was more symmetric and concentric than the BVS group. Only 8.0% of the BVS arm and 20.0% of the metallic EES arm achieved optimal scaffold/stent expansion (p < 0.001). At 1 year, there was no difference in the DoCE between both devices (BVS 5.2% vs. EES 3.1%; p = 0.29). Post-procedural devices asymmetry and eccentricity were related to higher event rates while there was no relevance to the expansion status. Subsequent multivariate analysis identified that post-procedural AI >0.30 is an independent predictor of DoCE (hazard ratio: 3.43; 95% confidence interval: 1.08 to 10.92; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: BVS implantation is more frequently associated with post-procedural asymmetric and eccentric morphology compared to metallic EES. Post-procedural devices asymmetry were independently associated with DoCE following percutaneous coronary intervention. However, this approach should be viewed as hypothesis generating due to low event rates. (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB II]; NCT01425281).
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to investigate the relationship between post-procedural asymmetry, expansion, and eccentricity indices of metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and their respective impact on clinical events at 1-year follow-up. BACKGROUND: Mechanical properties of a fully BVS are inherently different from those of permanent metallic stent. METHODS: The ABSORB II (A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions) trial compared the BVS and metallic EES in the treatment of a de novo coronary artery stenosis. Protocol-mandated intravascular ultrasound imaging was performed pre- and post-procedure in 470 patients (162 metallic EES and 308 BVS). Asymmetry index (AI) was calculated per lesion as: (1 - minimum scaffold/stent diameter/maximum scaffold/stent diameter). Expansion index and optimal scaffold/stent expansion followed the definition of the MUSIC (Multicenter Ultrasound Stenting in Coronaries) study. Eccentricity index (EI) was calculated as the ratio of minimum and maximum scaffold/stent diameter per cross section. The incidence of device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE) was collected. RESULTS: Post-procedure, the metallic EES group was more symmetric and concentric than the BVS group. Only 8.0% of the BVS arm and 20.0% of the metallic EES arm achieved optimal scaffold/stent expansion (p < 0.001). At 1 year, there was no difference in the DoCE between both devices (BVS 5.2% vs. EES 3.1%; p = 0.29). Post-procedural devices asymmetry and eccentricity were related to higher event rates while there was no relevance to the expansion status. Subsequent multivariate analysis identified that post-procedural AI >0.30 is an independent predictor of DoCE (hazard ratio: 3.43; 95% confidence interval: 1.08 to 10.92; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: BVS implantation is more frequently associated with post-procedural asymmetric and eccentric morphology compared to metallic EES. Post-procedural devices asymmetry were independently associated with DoCE following percutaneous coronary intervention. However, this approach should be viewed as hypothesis generating due to low event rates. (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB II]; NCT01425281).
Authors: Florian Blachutzik; Niklas Boeder; Jens Wiebe; Alessio Mattesini; Oliver Dörr; Astrid Most; Timm Bauer; Jens Röther; Monique Tröbs; Christian Schlundt; Stephan Achenbach; Christian W Hamm; Holger M Nef Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Ruben Y G Tijssen; Laura S M Kerkmeijer; Kuniaki Takahashi; Norihiro Kogame; Yuki Katagiri; Robin P Kraak; Ply Chichareon; Rodrigo Modolo; Taku Asano; Martina Nassif; Deborah N Kalkman; Yohei Sotomi; Carlos Collet; Sjoerd H Hofma; Rene J van der Schaaf; E Karin Arkenbout; Auke P J D Weevers; Jan J Piek; Jan G P Tijssen; Jose P Henriques; Robbert J de Winter; Yoshinobu Onuma; Patrick W Serruys; Joanna J Wykrzykowska Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Maria Natalia Tovar Forero; Laurens van Zandvoort; Kaneshka Masdjedi; Roberto Diletti; Jeroen Wilschut; Peter P de Jaegere; Felix Zijlstra; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Joost Daemen Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mateusz P Jeżewski; Michał J Kubisa; Ceren Eyileten; Salvatore De Rosa; Günter Christ; Maciej Lesiak; Ciro Indolfi; Aurel Toma; Jolanta M Siller-Matula; Marek Postuła Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-12-07 Impact factor: 4.241