Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents

Çakal, Beytullah

doi:10.5578/khj.69318

Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents

Beytullah ÇAKAL (stanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Kardiyoloji Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Koşuyolu Heart Journal

0 0

Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 38 - 45 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5578/khj.69318 İndeks Tarihi: 18-10-2020

Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents

Öz:

Introduction: Although bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) are considered a new paradigm in stent technology, operators are often discouraged from implanting BRS because of increased strut thickness, reduced radial force, requirement for pre- and postdilatation of the lesions, and concerns about the risk of stent thrombosis. We compared procedure and fluoroscopy duration, cumulative radiation dose, and contrast agent volume among patients undergoing BRS or drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.Patients and Methods: One hundred thirty-four patients with a total of 165 coronary lesions, including 64 patients (78 lesions) with BRS and 70 patients (87 lesions) with DES, were selected. Clinical and procedural characteristics and angiographic features were calculated. Procedure and fluoroscopy time, volume of contrast medium, and cumulative radiation dose (Gy) were compared.Results: The number of predilated and postdilated lesions was higher in the BRS group than in the DES group, although baseline lesion morphologies were similar. Stent diameters were comparable between the two groups. Larger postdilatation balloon sizes were chosen in the BRS group. Mean procedure time (45.4 ± 16.1 minutes vs. 38.3 ± 15.1 minutes; p= 0.010), volume of contrast medium (207.7 ± 80.7 mL vs. 154.7 ± 74.6 mL; p= 0.001), fluoroscopy duration (15.9 ± 6.6 minutes vs. 13.1 ± 6.6 minutes; p= 0.014), and radiation dose (1.80 ± 1.08 Gy vs. 1.44 ± 0.91 Gy, p= 0.037) were significantly higher in the BRS group than in the DES group.Conclusion: BRS implantation leads to prolonged fluoroscopy, longer procedure duration, greater contrast volume, and higher radiation exposure compared with DES procedures

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Sousa J, A Costa M, Abizaid AS, Feres F, Pinto I, C Seixas A, et al. Lack of neointimal proliferation after implantation of sirolimus-coated stents in human coronary arteries: A quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation 2001;103(2):192-5.
2. Joner M, Finn AV, Farb A, Mont EK, Kolodgie FD, Ladich E, et al. Pathol-ogy of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48(1):193-202.
3. Serruys PW, Garcia-Garcia HM, Onuma Y. From metallic cages to tran-sient bioresorbable scaffolds: change in paradigm of coronary revasculari-zation in the upcoming decade? Eur Heart J 2012;33(1):16-25b.
4. Ormiston JA, Serruys PW, Regar E, Dudek D, Thuesen L, Webster MW, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB): a prospective open-label trial. Lancet 2008;371(9616):899-907.
5. Sotomi Y, Onuma Y, Collet C, Tenekecioglu E, Virmani R, Kleiman NS, et al. Bioresorbable scaffold: the emerging reality and future directions. Circulation Research 2017;120(8):1341-52.
6. Capodanno D. Bioresorbable scaffolds in coronary intervention: unmet needs and evolution. Korean Circulation Journal 2018;48(1):24-35.
7. Jinnouchi H, Torii S, Sakamoto A, Kolodgie FD, Virmani R, Finn AV. Fully bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: lessons learned and future direc-tions. Nat Rev Cardiol 2019;16(5):286-304.
8. Ortega-Paz L, Capodanno D, Gori T, Nef H, Latib A, Caramanno G, et al. Predilation, sizing and post-dilation scoring in patients undergoing everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold implantation for prediction of cardiac adverse events: development and internal validation of the PSP score. EuroIntervention 2017;12(17):2110-7.
9. Bonow RO, Masoudi FA, Rumsfeld JS, Delong E, Estes NA 3rd, Goff DC Jr, et al. ACC/AHA classification of care metrics: performance meas-ures and quality metrics: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52(24):2113-7.
10. Tan HC, Ananthakrishna R. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in rou-tine clinical practice: should we wait longer? JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9(16):1664-6.
11. Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, Metzger DC, Caputo RP, Rizik DG, Teirstein PS, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery dis-ease. N Engl J Med 2015;373(20):1905-15.
12. Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, Metzger C, Caputo RP, Rizik DG, Teirstein PS, et al. 3-year clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorb-able coronary scaffolds: The ABSORB III Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70(23):2852-62.
13. Verheye S, Ormiston JA, Stewart J, Webster M, Sanidas E, Costa R, et al. A next-generation bioresorbable coronary scaffold system: from bench to first clinical evaluation: 6- and 12-month clinical and multimodality imag-ing results. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7(1):89-99.
14. Rizik DG, Hermiller JB, Kereiakes DJ. The ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold: A novel, fully resorbable drug-eluting stent: Current concepts and overview of clinical evidence. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2015;86(4):664-77.
15. Tamburino C, Latib A, van Geuns RJ, Sabate M, Mehilli J, Gori T, et al. Contemporary practice and technical aspects in coronary interven-tion with bioresorbable scaffolds: a European perspective. EuroIntervent 2015;11(1):45-52.
16. Stone GW, Abizaid A, Onuma Y, Seth A, Gao R, Ormiston J, et al. Ef-fect of technique on outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaf-fold implantation: analysis from the ABSORB trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70(23):2863-74.
17. Ali ZA, Serruys PW, Kimura T, Gao R, Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, et al. 2-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy. Lancet 2017;390(10096):760-72.
18. Yamaji K, Raber L, Windecker S. What determines long-term outcomes using fully bioresorbable scaffolds-the device, the operator or the lesion? EuroIntervent 2017;12(14):1684-7.
19. Sato K, Latib A, Panoulas VF, Kawamoto H, Naganuma T, Miyazaki T, et al. Procedural feasibility and clinical outcomes in propensity-matched pa-tients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds vs new-generation drug-eluting stents. Can J Cardiol 2015;31(3):328-34.
20. Wiebe J, Liebetrau C, Dorr O, Most A, Weipert K, Rixe J, et al. Feasibil-ity of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with chronic total occlusion. Int J Cardiol 2015;179:90-4.
21. Ozel E, Tastan A, Ozturk A, Ozcan EE, Kilicaslan B, Ozdogan O. Proce-dural and one-year clinical outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of chronic total occlusions: a single-centre experience. Cardiovasc J Afr 2016;27(6):345-9.

APA	Çakal B (2020). Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. , 38 - 45. 10.5578/khj.69318
Chicago	Çakal Beytullah Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. (2020): 38 - 45. 10.5578/khj.69318
MLA	Çakal Beytullah Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. , 2020, ss.38 - 45. 10.5578/khj.69318
AMA	Çakal B Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. . 2020; 38 - 45. 10.5578/khj.69318
Vancouver	Çakal B Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. . 2020; 38 - 45. 10.5578/khj.69318
IEEE	Çakal B "Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents." , ss.38 - 45, 2020. 10.5578/khj.69318
ISNAD	Çakal, Beytullah. "Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents". (2020), 38-45. https://doi.org/10.5578/khj.69318

APA	Çakal B (2020). Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. Koşuyolu Heart Journal, 23(1), 38 - 45. 10.5578/khj.69318
Chicago	Çakal Beytullah Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. Koşuyolu Heart Journal 23, no.1 (2020): 38 - 45. 10.5578/khj.69318
MLA	Çakal Beytullah Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. Koşuyolu Heart Journal, vol.23, no.1, 2020, ss.38 - 45. 10.5578/khj.69318
AMA	Çakal B Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. Koşuyolu Heart Journal. 2020; 23(1): 38 - 45. 10.5578/khj.69318
Vancouver	Çakal B Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. Koşuyolu Heart Journal. 2020; 23(1): 38 - 45. 10.5578/khj.69318
IEEE	Çakal B "Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents." Koşuyolu Heart Journal, 23, ss.38 - 45, 2020. 10.5578/khj.69318
ISNAD	Çakal, Beytullah. "Impact of Bioresorbable Scaffold Use on Procedural Features Compared with New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents". Koşuyolu Heart Journal 23/1 (2020), 38-45. https://doi.org/10.5578/khj.69318