Literature DB >> 27414021

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold use for coronary bifurcation lesions: A substudy from GHOST EU registry.

Toru Naganuma1,2, Antonio Colombo1, Maciej Lesiak3, Davide Capodanno4, Tommaso Gori5, Holger Nef6, Giuseppe Caramanno7, Christoph Naber8, Carlo Di Mario9, Neil Ruparelia1, Piera Capranzano4, Jens Wiebe6, Aleksander Araszkiewicz3, Salvatore Geraci7, Hiroyoshi Kawamoto1,2, Stelios Pyxaras8, Alessio Mattesini9, Thomas Münzel5, Corrado Tamburino4, Azeem Latib1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate midterm outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) implanted in bifurcation lesions.
BACKGROUND: BVS have emerged as an alternative to conventional metallic drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary complex lesions.
METHODS: Between November 2011 and January 2014, 1189 patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with BVS at 10 European centers (GHOST EU registry). Of these, 289 consecutive patients (302 bifurcation lesions) treated with either single-stenting (n = 260) or double-stenting (n = 42) were evaluated.
RESULTS: True bifurcations were treated in 44.7%. Intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography were utilized only in 22.2% and 21.2%, respectively. Predilation was performed in 95.4%, while postdilation of the main branch was performed in 61.3%. Final kissing inflation with no or minimal protrusion of a side-branch balloon into main branch was performed in 18.9%. Median follow-up period was 356 (IQR 191-419) days. The Kaplan-Meier estimated rates of target lesion failure and scaffold thrombosis (ST) were 6.4% and 2.5% at 360 days, respectively. Independent predictors for TLF were ACS and diabetes mellitus (HR 4.67; 95% CI: 1.78-12.3; P = 0.002 and HR 3.37; 95% CI: 1.38-8.26; P = 0.008, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: BVS use for coronary bifurcation lesions in an "all-comer" population was associated with acceptable TLF rates up to midterm follow-up. However, ST rates were higher than seen with contemporary metallic stents possibly due to the low incidence of intravascular guidance and postdilation resulting in a higher likelihood of scaffold underexpansion and malapposition, further supporting the importance of meticulous implantation technique.
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bioresorbable vascular scaffold; coronary bifurcation; scaffold thrombosis

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27414021     DOI: 10.1002/ccd.26634

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1522-1946            Impact factor:   2.692


  8 in total

1.  Bioresorbable scaffolds: should we stay simple or go complex?

Authors:  Luis Ortega-Paz; Salvatore Brugaletta; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Manel Sabaté
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2017-06

Review 2.  Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Stenosis: When and How Based Upon Current Studies.

Authors:  Alexandre Abizaid; J Ribamar Costa
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Impact of directional coronary atherectomy followed by drug-coated balloon strategy to avoid the complex stenting for bifurcation lesions.

Authors:  Masaaki Okutsu; Satoru Mitomo; Toru Ouchi; Hisahito Yuki; Takahiro Ueno; Hirokazu Onish; Hiroto Yabushita; Satoshi Matsuoka; Hiroyoshi Kawamoto; Yusuke Watanabe; Kentaro Tanaka; Toru Naganuma; Tomohiko Sato; Satoko Tahara; Naoyuki Kurita; Shotaro Nakamura; Sunao Nakamura
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xi-Ying Liang; Yan Li; Wen-Jiao Zhang; Xuan Qiao; Rong-Rong Yang; Zhi-Lu Wang
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 3.487

5.  Recommendations for the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions : 2017 revision.

Authors:  B Everaert; J J Wykrzykowska; J Koolen; P van der Harst; P den Heijer; J P Henriques; R van der Schaaf; B de Smet; S H Hofma; R Diletti; A Weevers; J Hoorntje; P Smits; R J van Geuns
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.380

6.  Branch ostial optimization treatment and optimized provisional t-stenting with polymeric bioresorbable scaffolds: Ex-vivo morphologic and hemodynamic examination.

Authors:  Wei Cai; Lianglong Chen; Linlin Zhang; Sheng Tu; Lin Fan; Zhaoyang Chen; Yukun Luo; Xingchun Zheng
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Bioresorbable magnesium scaffold in the treatment of simple coronary bifurcation lesions: The BIFSORB pilot II study.

Authors:  Trine Ø Barkholt; Omeed Neghabat; Emil N Holck; Lene N Andreasen; Evald H Christiansen; Niels R Holm
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2021-12-30       Impact factor: 2.585

Review 8.  Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Contemporary Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Xiang Peng; Wenbo Qu; Ying Jia; Yani Wang; Bo Yu; Jinwei Tian
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2020-11-30
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.