Search

Background: Data on Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) use in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are limited. Furthermore, Absorb studies including STEMI patients lacked a prespecified implantation technique to optimize BVS deployment. This study examines the 5-year outcomes of BVS in STEMI patients using an optimized implantation strategy and the impact of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)., Methods: The BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT study is a prospective, non-randomized, single-arm multicenter trial (NCT02601781). It involved 505 STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with a predefined BVS implantation protocol. Key endpoints were a 5-year device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR). The study also compared outcomes based on DAPT duration (36 months vs. shorter)., Results: 502 (99.4 %) patients completed the 5-year follow-up. DOCE rate was 2.4 %. ID-TLR, TV-MI, and cardiac death rates were 1.6 %, 0.8 %, and 0.6 %, respectively. No DOCE occurred between three and five years. Scaffold thrombosis (ScT) was 1 %, all occurring within 24 months. Longer-term DAPT significantly reduced DOCE (1.3 % vs. 4.3 %; HR: 0.29; 95 % CI: 0.1-0.9; p = 0.03) driven by a lower rate of TV-MI (0 % vs. 2.2 %; p = 0.018) compared to shorter-term DAPT, as well as ScT (0 % vs 2.7 %, p = 0.007)., Conclusions: This study shows favorable 5-year outcomes for BVS in selected STEMI patients with an optimized implantation strategy. Prolonged DAPT further improved outcomes, emphasizing its role in reducing adverse events during scaffold resorption. Further research is needed to assess newer-generation bioresorbable devices., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A large trial established the favorable profile of a new polymer-free biolimus A9-eluting stent (PF-BES) with a 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients. This is the first study comparing outcomes for a 1-month versus longer DAPT strategies following PF-BES-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods: All patients undergoing PF-BES-PCI (January 2016 to July 2018) were included in the multicenter CHANCE registry. Patients were stratified according to DAPT strategy at discharge (planned 1-month vs. planned >1-month). Primary outcomes were the 390-day estimates of a patient-oriented and of a device-oriented composite endpoints (POCE: death, myocardial infarction [MI] or target vessel revascularization; DOCE: cardiac death, target vessel-MI or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). Landmark analyses from 1-month post-PCI were carried., Results: Following PF-BES-PCI, 328(40.3%) and 485(59.6%) patients were discharged with 1-month and longer DAPT (12 months [6-12]), respectively. Patients with a previous or index MI were less likely to be discharged on 1-month DAPT. Patients prescribed with 1-month DAPT were more likely to be at HBR than those with longer DAPT (90.2% vs. 69.9%, p = .001). No between-groups differences in the primary outcomes (planned 1-month vs. planned >1-month DAPT: POCE 11.9% vs. 13.2%, p = .747; DOCE: 4.8% vs. 8.1%, p = .500) were observed, also after adjusting for confoundings (POCE: adjusted-hazard ratio [adj-HR] 1.26, 95%CI 0.74-2.13; DOCE: adj-HR 1.00, 95%CI 0.49-1.99). Landmark analyses showed similar results., Conclusions: In a large all-comers registry of PF-BES PCI, no interaction of planned DAPT strategy (1-month vs. >1-month) with outcomes was found. This observation warrants investigation in adequately powered randomized studies (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03622203)., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Aims: A large trial established the favourable clinical profile of a new polymer-free biolimus A9-eluting stent (PF-BES) with a one-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimen in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR). We aimed to evaluate the real-world patterns of indications, DAPT strategies and outcomes for the PF-BES following this evidence., Methods and Results: CHANCE is a multicentre registry including all patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with at least one PF-BES. The reasons for the PF-BES PCI and planned antithrombotic regimens were collected. Primary outcomes were the 390-day Kaplan-Meier estimates of patient-oriented and device-oriented composite endpoints (POCE: death, myocardial infarction [MI] or target vessel revascularisation [TVR]; DOCE: cardiac death, target vessel MI or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation [ID-TLR]). Between January 2016 and July 2018, 858 patients (age 74±10 years, 64.6% male, 58.7% acute coronary syndrome presentation) underwent PF-BES PCI. The main reasons for the physicians' choice of PF-BES reflected a perceived HBR in 77.7% of patients. One-month DAPT was planned in 40.3% of patients. At 390-day follow-up (median 340 days, interquartile range: 187-390 days), the estimated incidence of POCE was 13.1% (any MI 3.7%, any TVR 3.4%) and of DOCE was 7.1% (TV-MI 3.6%, ID-TLR 1.4%), while the 390-day estimate of any bleeding event was 11.1% (BARC 3-5 bleeding 3.0%)., Conclusions: In a large all-comers registry, PF-BES was used mostly in HBR patients, frequently followed by a very short DAPT regimen. The reported outcomes suggest a favourable safety and efficacy profile for the PF-BES in a real-world clinical setting. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03622203.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and clinical results following a pre-specified bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb BVS) implantation strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Background: Concerns were raised about the safety of Absorb because a non-negligible rate of thrombosis was reported within 30 days and at midterm follow-up after primary percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter study of patients with STEMI (<75 years of age with symptom onset <12 h) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with Absorb following a dedicated implantation protocol. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization within 30 days., Results: During the study period, 505 patients with STEMI (16.9% of the overall STEMI population) were treated with the Absorb BVS. The mean age was 56.6 ± 9.4 years, and 487 patients (96.4%) were in Killip class I or II at admission. According to the study protocol, direct Absorb implantation was feasible in 47 patients (9.3%), whereas post-dilatation was performed in 468 cases (92.7%). Procedural success was attained in 94.8% of the cases. Dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor or prasugrel was administered at discharge in 481 patients (95.1%). At 30-day follow-up, the hierarchical device-oriented composite endpoint rate was 0.6% (0.4% cardiac death, 0.2% target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). One episode (0.2%) of probable scaffold thrombosis was reported., Conclusions: A pre-specified Absorb implantation strategy in real-world patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention was feasible and associated with a low 30-day device-oriented composite endpoint rate. Mid- and long-term follow-up is strongly needed to eventually confirm these early results. (Use of BVS in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI]: The BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT Prospective Registry [STRATEGY-IT]; NCT02601781)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the last years bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) become a new therapeutic option for interventional cardiologists, with the advantage of a scaffold inducing a possible vessel wall restoration. Nevertheless, several trials tried to prove the safety and efficacy profile of scaffolds, but with conflicting results., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The search was carried out in PubMed, Google Scholar, Biomed Central and Cochrane Library between January and March 2017. Inclusion criteria: randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing the Absorb BVS versus durable polymer cobalt-chromium Everolimus Eluting Stent. The outcomes analysed were all-cause mortality, cardiac death, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion failure (TLF)/device oriented composite endpoints (DOCE), and device thrombosis. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed. Data were expressed as odds ratio (OR)., Results: Overall 5,674 patients were included (mean age 62.2±1.31 in drug eluting stents (DES) group vs. 62±1,47 in BVS group; P=0.942). DOCE (OR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.90-1.48; P=0.259, I2=0%), cardiac death (OR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.52-1.40; P=0.537, I 2 =0%) and all-cause death (OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.53-1.15; P=0.205, I 2 =15%) did not differ between BVS and DES. Conversely, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was more frequent in the BVS group (OR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.01-1.73; P=0.039, I 2 =0%), as well as device thrombosis (2.2% vs. 0.6%, OR 2.94, 95% CI: 1.71-5.05, P=0.0001, I 2 =0%) and target-vessel MI (5.4% vs. 3%, OR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.25-2.21, P=0.001, I 2 =0%)., Conclusions: The implantation of BVS is associated with an increased risk of device thrombosis, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI. If longer follow-up or different implantation technique may change these findings should be addressed in future trials., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Objectives: To assess the feasibility and the clinical results following a prespecified bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) implantation strategy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients., Backgrounds: Concerns raised about the BVS safety in STEMI setting because a not negligible thrombosis rate was reported within 30 days and 12 months after implantation. Technical procedural issues related to the structural BVS features were advocated as probable causes for the thrombotic events., Methods: This is an investigators-owned and -directed, prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm multicenter registry intended to obtain data from 500 consecutive STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI with BVS (1.1 or GT1) following a prespecified implantation protocol. The study is recorded in ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier: NCT02601781., Results: The primary endpoint is a device-oriented composite end-point (DOCE) of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction clearly attributable to the intervention culprit vessel and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization within 30 days after the index procedure. The DOCE will be assessed even at 6-month, 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up., Conclusions: This will be the first study investigating the feasibility and the early- and long-term clinical impact of a prespecified BVS implantation protocol in thrombotic lesions causing STEMI. Here, we describe the rationale and the design of the study. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the leading causes of mortality worldwide. We report our experience in a cancer patient with acute coronary syndrome successfully treated by hybrid revascularization, i.e. off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, followed by surgical removal of the tumor and percutaneous coronary intervention. The concomitant presence of cancer and acute coronary syndrome is not rare, ranging from 1.9% to 4.2%. Usually, the most life-threatening disease should be treated first, more frequently coronary artery disease. There are several therapeutic approaches to patients with cancer and coronary artery disease and cancer, including percutaneous coronary intervention, surgical treatment of cancer, or coronary artery bypass grafting. Each of these options should consider the severity of cardiac disease, the stage of malignancy and the clinical conditions of the patient.