Search

Background: Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)-related events have been reported between 1 and 3 years - the period of active scaffold bioresorption. Data on the performance of the Absorb BVS in daily clinical practice beyond this time point are scarce., Aims: This report aimed to provide the final five-year clinical follow-up of the Absorb BVS in comparison with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES). In addition, we evaluated the effect of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) administration on events in the scaffold group., Methods: AIDA was a multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority trial, in which 1,845 unselected patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either the Absorb BVS (n=924) or the XIENCE EES (n=921). Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation, was the primary endpoint. Scaffold thrombosis cases were matched with controls and tested for the effect of prolonged DAPT., Results: Up to five-year follow-up, there was no difference in TVF between the Absorb BVS (17.7%) and the XIENCE EES (16.1%) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.41; p=0.302). Definite or probable device thrombosis (DT) occurred in 43 patients (4.8%) in the scaffold group compared to 13 patients (1.5%) in the stent group (HR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.78-6.17; p<0.001). DT between 3 and 4 years occurred six times in the Absorb arm versus three times in the XIENCE arm. Between 4 and 5 years, the incidence was three versus two, respectively. Of those three DT in the scaffold group, two occurred in XIENCE EES-treated lesions. The odds ratio of scaffold thrombosis in patients on DAPT compared to off DAPT throughout five-year follow-up was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.15-0.86)., Conclusions: The excess risk of the Absorb BVS on late adverse events, in particular device thrombosis, in routine PCI continues up to 4 years and seems to plateau afterwards. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01858077.

Background: In this prespecified AIDA-trial sub-study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3-year follow-up., Methods and Results: All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p = .840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p = .391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p = .028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p < .001, respectively)., Conclusions: In routine PCI practice, both Absorb BVS and Xience EES have worse clinical outcomes in diabetic patients as compared to nondiabetic patients. Throughout all clinical presentations, Absorb BVS was associated with higher rates of device thrombosis at 3-year follow-up., (© 2020 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: This final report from the REMEDEE Registry assessed the long-term safety and efficacy of the dual-therapy COMBO stent in a large unselected patient population., Background: The bio-engineered COMBO stent (OrbusNeich Medical BV, The Netherlands) is a dual-therapy pro-healing stent. Data of long-term safety and efficacy of the this stent is lacking., Methods: The prospective, multicenter, investigator-initiated REMEDEE Registry evaluated clinical outcomes after COMBO stent implantation in daily clinical practice. One thousand patients were enrolled between June 2013 and March 2014., Results: Five-year follow-up data were obtained in 97.2% of patients. At 5-years, target lesion failure (TLF) (composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) was present in 145 patients (14.8%). Definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) occurred in 0.9%, with no additional case beyond 3-years of follow-up. In males, 5-year TLF-rate was 15.6 versus 12.6% in females (p = .22). Patients without diabetes mellitus (DM) had TLF-rate of 11.4%, noninsulin-treated DM 22.7% (p = .001) and insulin-treated DM 41.2% (p < .001). Patients presenting with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) had higher incidence of TLF compared to non-ACS (20.4 vs. 13.3%; p = .008), while incidence with STE-ACS was comparable to non-ACS (10.7 vs. 13.3%; p = .43)., Conclusion: Percutaneous coronary intervention with the dual-therapy COMBO stent in unselected patient population shows low rates of TLF and ST to 5 years. Remarkably, no case of ST was noted beyond 3 years., (© 2020 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Bleeding and myocardial infarction (MI) after percutaneous coronary intervention are independent risk factors for mortality. This study aimed to investigate the association of all-cause mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention with site-reported bleeding and MI, when considered as individual, repeated, or combined events., Methods: We used the data from the GLOBAL LEADERS trial (GLOBAL LEADERS: A Clinical Study Comparing Two Forms of Anti-Platelet Therapy After Stent Implantation), an all-comers trial of 15 968 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5, whereas MI included periprocedural and spontaneous MIs according to the Third Universal Definition., Results: At 2-year follow-up, 1061 and 498 patients (6.64% and 3.12%) experienced bleeding and MI, respectively. Patients with a bleeding event had a 10.8% mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 5.97 [95% CI, 4.76-7.49]; P <0.001), and the mortality of patients with an MI was 10.4% (HR, 5.06 [95% CI, 3.72-6.90]; P <0.001), whereas the overall mortality was 2.99%. Albeit reduced over time, MI and even minor BARC 2 bleeding significantly influenced mortality beyond 1 year after adverse events (HR of MI, 2.32 [95% CI, 1.18-4.55]; P =0.014, and HR of BARC 2 bleeding, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.02-3.15]; P =0.044). The mortality rates in patients with repetitive bleeding, repetitive MI, and both bleeding and MI were 16.1%, 19.2%, and 19.0%, and their HRs for 2-year mortality were 8.58 (95% CI, 5.63-13.09; P <0.001), 5.57 (95% CI, 2.53-12.25; P <0.001), and 6.60 (95% CI, 3.44-12.65; P <0.001), respectively. De-escalation of antiplatelet therapy at the time of BARC 3 bleeding was associated with a lower subsequent bleeding or MI rate, compared with continuation of antiplatelet therapy (HR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.11-0.92]; P =0.034)., Conclusions: The fatal impact of bleeding and MI persisted beyond one year. Additional bleeding or MIs resulted in a poorer prognosis. De-escalation of antiplatelet therapy at the time of BARC 3 bleeding could have a major safety merit. These results emphasize the importance of considering the net clinical benefit including ischemic and bleeding events. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01813435.

Background: Females are underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating new stent technologies whilst results may differ between the sexes. Females are known to have smaller, more tortuous coronary arteries and have generally more comorbidities. On the other hand, they may have smaller plaque burden. This subgroup-analysis sought to assess sex-specific outcomes after Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) or XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation., Methods: The AIDA trial was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, in which 1845 patients were randomly assigned to either Absorb BVS or XIENCE EES. Baseline clinical, angiography and procedural variables, as well as 2-year clinical outcomes were analyzed by sex and device modality., Results: Of the 1845 randomized patients, 475 (25.7%) were females. The 2-year rates of target vessel failure (TVF) with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in females were 6.4% versus 10.6% (HR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.31-1.11; p = 0.10) and in males 12.7% versus 9.7% (HR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.98-1.85; p = 0.07). Males treated with Absorb BVS were at higher risk for TVF compared to females treated with Absorb BVS (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.21-3.53; p = 0.007). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred in females with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in 1.6% versus 1.4% (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.26-5.12; p = 0.86) and in males 3.9% versus 0.7% (HR 5.55; 95% CI: 2.11-14.35; p < 0.001). A statistical significant interaction between sex and device was present for TVF (p = 0.02), but was not seen for definite/probable device thrombosis (p = 0.08)., Conclusions: In this subgroup analysis, Absorb BVS used in routine practice tends to result in better clinical outcomes in females compared to males., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment with metallic drug eluting stents. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers (AIDA) trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) treated patients presenting either with or without ACS., Methods and Results: We classified AIDA patients on the basis of clinical presentation of ACS or of no-ACS. The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; P = 0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2%, respectively; P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (P = 0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (P = 0.17)., Conclusion: In the AIDA trial, the 2-year outcomes of PCI with Absorb BVS versus Xience EES were consistent in ACS and no-ACS patients: similar rates for TVF and consistently higher rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis under Absorb BVS versus Xience EES. There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)