Search

Abstract Background BRS represent a new approach to treating coronary artery disease. Beneficial properties of BRS regarding the restoration of vasomotility after resorption make them attractive devices in CTO revascularization. However, experience in this setting is limited. Methods We systematically searched Medline, Scholar, and Scopus for reports of at least 9 patients with CTO undergoing BRS implantation. Patients’ and procedural characteristics were summarized. The primary outcome of interest was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017069322). Results Thirteen reports for a total of 843 lesions with a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR 6–12) were included in the analysis. At short-term, the summary estimate rate of TLR was 2.6% (95% CI: 1 to 4%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.887) while at mid to long-term it was 3.8% (95% CI: 2 to 6%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.803). At long-term follow-up (≥12 months), the summary estimate rate of cardiac death was 1.1% (95% CI: 0 to 2%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.887). The summary estimate rates of scaffold thrombosis and clinical restenosis were respectively 0.9% (95% CI: 0 to 2%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.919) and 1.8% (95% CI: 0 to 4%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.448). Finally, the summary estimate rate of target vessel revascularization was 6.6% (95% CI: 0 to 11%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.04). Conclusions Implantation of BRS in a population with CTO is feasible, although further longer-term outcome studies are necessary.

Abstract Background Diabetes is among the strongest predictors of outcome after coronary artery stenting and the incidence of negative outcomes is still high in this specific group. Data of long-term outcomes comparing diabetic patients with non-diabetic patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds are still incomplete. This work evaluates the long-term outcomes after implantation of a coronary bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) in diabetic patients compared to non-diabetics. Methods Patients who received at least one Absorb BRS in the time of May 2012 to December 2014 were enrolled into this single-center registry. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed. Results Six hundred fifty seven patients including 138 patients (21%, mean age 65 ± 11, 78% male) with diabetes were enrolled. Patients in the diabetic group were significantly older, were more likely to suffer from hypertension and hyperlipidemia and had more often a prior stroke or TIA as well as a reduced renal function (all P

Abstract Background Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has traditionally represented the standard of care for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. However, percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation (PCI) has more recently emerged as a valuable alternative. The long-time awaited results of the largest randomized trials on the long-term impact of PCI versus CABG in LMCA disease, the newly published NOBLE and EXCEL studies, revealed contrasting results. Thus, aim of the present meta-analysis was to review the most robust evidence from randomized comparisons of CABG versus PCI for revascularization of LMCA. Methods Randomized studies comparing long-term clinical outcomes of CABG or Stent-PCI for the treatment of LMCA disease were searched for in PubMed, the Chochrane Library and Scopus electronic databases. A total of 5 randomized studies were selected, including 4499 patients. Results No significant difference between CABG and PCI was found in the primary analysis on the composite endpoint of death, stroke and myocardial infarction (OR = 1·06 95% CI 0·80–1·40; p = 0·70). Similarly, no differences were observed between CABG and PCI for all-cause death (OR = 1·03 95% CI 0·81–1·32; p = 0·81). Although not statistically significant, a lower rate of stroke was registered in the PCI arm (OR = 0·86; p = 0·67), while a lower rate of myocardial infarction was found in the CABG arm (OR = 1·43; p = 0·17). On the contrary, a significantly higher rate of repeat revascularization was registered in the PCI arm (OR = 1·76 95% CI 1·45–2·13; p

Abstract Background Coronary bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed to overcome the limitations of standard metallic stents, especially to address late events after percutaneous coronary interventions. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BRS, compared with Everolimus-eluting stents (EES), using the data available from randomized trials, with a focus on long-term outcomes. Methods Published randomized trials comparing BRS to EES for the treatment of coronary artery disease were searched for within PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus electronic databases up to April 4th 2017. The summary measure used was odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results A total of 5 studies were eligible, including 5219 patients. At 2 years, BRS was associated with higher rates of target lesion failure (9.4% vs 7.2%; OR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; p = 0.008) and device thrombosis (2.3% vs 0.7%; OR = 3.22; 95% CI 1.86 to 5.57; p 1 year, 0.6% vs 0.1%, OR 4.03, 95% CI 1.37 to 11.82; p = 0.01) was higher with BRS compared with EES. Conclusions BRS may be associated with worse two-years clinical outcomes compared with EES in patients with coronary artery disease.