Alexandre Abizaid1,2,3, J Ribamar Costa4,5. 1. Instituto Dante Pazzanese de Cardiologia, Av. Dr. Dante Pazzanese, 500 - Vila Mariana, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, CEP 04012-180. aabizaid@uol.com.br. 2. Hospital do Coração, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. aabizaid@uol.com.br. 3. Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Sao Paulo, Brazil. aabizaid@uol.com.br. 4. Instituto Dante Pazzanese de Cardiologia, Av. Dr. Dante Pazzanese, 500 - Vila Mariana, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, CEP 04012-180. 5. Hospital do Coração, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: First-generation bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS), largely represented by the poly-l-lactic acid (PLLA) ABSORB (Abbott Vascular, Temecula, Illinois, US), have demonstrated, in low to moderate lesion complexity, similar efficacy to current generation metallic drug-eluting stents. However, a trend toward more device thrombosis has been observed, especially when the scaffolds are used in off-label situations. In this review, we address the most relevant drawbacks of these devices and, based on the available scientific data, we visit the scenarios where there is more uncertainty about their indication, trying to identify the lesions/patients to whom this technology should be voided at its current stage of development. RECENT FINDINGS: Based on available data from randomized trials and observational real world registries, the use of first generation BRS has been associated with a trend to higher acute/subacute thrombosis rate, which might be partially explained by the peculiarities related to their deployment technique, such as the need for precise vessel sizing and caution on post-dilation. Special attention should be paid when using these devices to treat small coronary arteries (<2.5 mm), long lesions requiring overlapping, and patients with acute coronary syndrome, in particular those with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Finally, the role of these devices is still uncertain in more complex lesion anatomies such as bifurcations, ostial lesions, etc. Although based on attractive clinical premises, the current indications of BRS are still limited by significant drawbacks observed in the first generation of these devices. Of note, new generation scaffolds are currently in preclinical and clinical evaluation and present features that might surpass most of these limitations.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: First-generation bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS), largely represented by the poly-l-lactic acid (PLLA) ABSORB (Abbott Vascular, Temecula, Illinois, US), have demonstrated, in low to moderate lesion complexity, similar efficacy to current generation metallic drug-eluting stents. However, a trend toward more device thrombosis has been observed, especially when the scaffolds are used in off-label situations. In this review, we address the most relevant drawbacks of these devices and, based on the available scientific data, we visit the scenarios where there is more uncertainty about their indication, trying to identify the lesions/patients to whom this technology should be voided at its current stage of development. RECENT FINDINGS: Based on available data from randomized trials and observational real world registries, the use of first generation BRS has been associated with a trend to higher acute/subacute thrombosis rate, which might be partially explained by the peculiarities related to their deployment technique, such as the need for precise vessel sizing and caution on post-dilation. Special attention should be paid when using these devices to treat small coronary arteries (<2.5 mm), long lesions requiring overlapping, and patients with acute coronary syndrome, in particular those with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Finally, the role of these devices is still uncertain in more complex lesion anatomies such as bifurcations, ostial lesions, etc. Although based on attractive clinical premises, the current indications of BRS are still limited by significant drawbacks observed in the first generation of these devices. Of note, new generation scaffolds are currently in preclinical and clinical evaluation and present features that might surpass most of these limitations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bioresorbable; Coronary artery disease; Drug eluting stent; Scaffolds
Authors: Alexandre Abizaid; J Ribamar Costa; Antonio L Bartorelli; Robert Whitbourn; Robert Jan van Geuns; Bernard Chevalier; Tejas Patel; Ashok Seth; Marrianne Stuteville; Cécile Dorange; Wai-Fung Cheong; Krishnankutty Sudhir; Patrick W Serruys Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Corrado Tamburino; Azeem Latib; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Manel Sabate; Julinda Mehilli; Tommaso Gori; Stephan Achenbach; Manuel Pan Alvarez; Holger Nef; Maciej Lesiak; Carlo Di Mario; Antonio Colombo; Christoph K Naber; Giuseppe Caramanno; Piera Capranzano; Salvatore Brugaletta; Salvatore Geraci; Aleksander Araszkiewicz; Alessio Mattesini; Stylianos A Pyxaras; Lukasz Rzeszutko; Rafalo Depukat; Roberto Diletti; Els Boone; Davide Capodanno; Dariusz Dudek Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Stephen G Ellis; Dean J Kereiakes; D Christopher Metzger; Ronald P Caputo; David G Rizik; Paul S Teirstein; Marc R Litt; Annapoorna Kini; Ameer Kabour; Steven O Marx; Jeffrey J Popma; Robert McGreevy; Zhen Zhang; Charles Simonton; Gregg W Stone Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hiram G Bezerra; Guilherme F Attizzani; Vasile Sirbu; Giuseppe Musumeci; Nikoloz Lortkipanidze; Yusuke Fujino; Wei Wang; Sunao Nakamura; Andrej Erglis; Giulio Guagliumi; Marco A Costa Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 11.195
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