open access

Vol 76, No 7 (2018)
Reviews
Published online: 2018-06-12
Submitted: 2018-06-12
Accepted: 2018-06-12
Get Citation

Current perspectives on the role of bioresorbable scaffolds in the management of coronary artery disease

Artur Dziewierz, Dariusz Dudek
DOI: 10.5603/KP.a2018.0130
·
Pubmed: 30251247
·
Kardiol Pol 2018;76(7):1043-1054.

open access

Vol 76, No 7 (2018)
Reviews
Published online: 2018-06-12
Submitted: 2018-06-12
Accepted: 2018-06-12

Abstract

New-generation drug-eluting stents are recommended as the default option in all clinical conditions and lesion subsets in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). On the other hand, despite achieving very good results in the rate of restenosis, permanent delivery of a metallic platform is affected by several drawbacks, such as caging of the vessel, side branch jailing, impairment of vasomotion, and the impossibility of lumen enlargement. Also, the presence of residual foreign material may increase the risk of late and very late stent thrombosis and support the need for long-term dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI. These pending limitations of metallic stents can be addressed by the implantation of bioresorbable scaf­folds (BRSs). At present, there are numerous devices available for preclinical or clinical evaluation. This review discusses the evidence for BRS in the management of patients with coronary artery disease.

Abstract

New-generation drug-eluting stents are recommended as the default option in all clinical conditions and lesion subsets in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). On the other hand, despite achieving very good results in the rate of restenosis, permanent delivery of a metallic platform is affected by several drawbacks, such as caging of the vessel, side branch jailing, impairment of vasomotion, and the impossibility of lumen enlargement. Also, the presence of residual foreign material may increase the risk of late and very late stent thrombosis and support the need for long-term dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI. These pending limitations of metallic stents can be addressed by the implantation of bioresorbable scaf­folds (BRSs). At present, there are numerous devices available for preclinical or clinical evaluation. This review discusses the evidence for BRS in the management of patients with coronary artery disease.

Get Citation

Keywords

bioresorbable scaffolds, scaffold thrombosis, stents, percutaneous coronary interventions, outcomes

About this article
Title

Current perspectives on the role of bioresorbable scaffolds in the management of coronary artery disease

Journal

Kardiologia Polska (Polish Heart Journal)

Issue

Vol 76, No 7 (2018)

Pages

1043-1054

Published online

2018-06-12

DOI

10.5603/KP.a2018.0130

Pubmed

30251247

Bibliographic record

Kardiol Pol 2018;76(7):1043-1054.

Keywords

bioresorbable scaffolds
scaffold thrombosis
stents
percutaneous coronary interventions
outcomes

Authors

Artur Dziewierz
Dariusz Dudek

References (66)
  1. Brophy J, Belisle P, Joseph L. Evidence for Use of Coronary Stents: A Hierarchical Bayesian Meta-Analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138(10): 777.
  2. Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, et al. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007; 370(9591): 937–948.
  3. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation. 2012; 125(23): 2873–2891.
  4. Bangalore S, Toklu B, Amoroso N, et al. Bare metal stents, durable polymer drug eluting stents, and biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents for coronary artery disease: mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013; 347: f6625.
  5. Dangas GD, Serruys PW, Kereiakes DJ, et al. Meta-analysis of everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: final 3-year results of the SPIRIT clinical trials program (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6(9): 914–922.
  6. Palmerini T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Della Riva D, et al. Clinical outcomes with bioabsorbable polymer- versus durable polymer-based drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(4): 299–307.
  7. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(37): 2541–2619.
  8. Iqbal J, Onuma Y, Ormiston J, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds: rationale, current status, challenges, and future. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(12): 765–776.
  9. Lesiak M, Araszkiewicz A. "Leaving nothing behind": is the bioresorbable vascular scaffold a new hope for patients with coronary artery disease? Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2014; 10(4): 283–288.
  10. Kereiakes DJ, Onuma Y, Serruys PW, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for coronary revascularization. Circulation. 2016; 134(2): 168–182.
  11. Regazzoli D, Leone PP, Colombo A, et al. New generation bioresorbable scaffold technologies: an update on novel devices and clinical results. J Thorac Dis. 2017; 9(Suppl 9): S979–S985.
  12. Byrne RA, Stefanini GG, Capodanno D, et al. Report of an ESC-EAPCI Task Force on the evaluation and use of bioresorbable scaffolds for percutaneous coronary intervention: executive summary. EuroIntervention. 2018; 13(13): 1574–1586.
  13. Reczuch K, Milewski K, Wąsek W, et al. [Bioresorbable scaffolds in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Expert consensus statement of the Association of Cardiovascular Interventions of the Polish Cardiac Society (ACVI PCS)]. Kardiol Pol. 2017; 75(8): 817–835.
  14. Capodanno D. Time for a debriefing: is there a future for bioresorbable scaffolds? EuroIntervention. 2018; 13(16): 1857–1859.
  15. Serruys PW, Ormiston JA, Onuma Y, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (ABSORB): 2-year outcomes and results from multiple imaging methods. Lancet. 2009; 373(9667): 897–910.
  16. Gutiérrez-Chico JL, Witt UE, Jaguszewski M. Off-label indications for bioresorbable scaffolds: "Beethoven can, but you cannot". Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2016; 12(1): 1–2.
  17. Gil RJ, Bil J, Pawłowski T, et al. The use of bioresorbable vascular scaffold Absorb BVS® in patients with stable coronary artery disease: one-year results with special focus on the hybrid bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and drug eluting stents treatment. Kardiol Pol. 2016; 74(7): 627–633.
  18. Dudek D, Rzeszutko Ł, Zasada W, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndromes: the POLAR ACS study. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2014; 124(12): 669–677.
  19. Rzeszutko Ł, Siudak Z, Tokarek T, et al. Twelve months clinical outcome after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in patients with stable angina and acute coronary syndrome. Data from the Polish National Registry. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2016; 12(2): 108–115.
  20. Rzeszutko Ł, Tokarek T, Siudak Z, et al. Patient profile and periprocedural outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in comparison with drug-eluting and bare-metal stent implantation. Experience from ORPKI Polish National Registry 2014-2015. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2016; 12(4): 321–328.
  21. Vassilev D, Dosev L, Gil RJ. Is it possible to further improve clinical results with coronary bifurcation stenting, or what is more important - the technique or the stent? Kardiol Pol. 2017; 75(2): 91–100.
  22. Roleder T, Wanha W, Smolka G, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in saphenous vein grafts (data from OCTOPUS registry). Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2015; 11(4): 323–326.
  23. Capodanno D, Gori T, Nef H, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine clinical practice: early and midterm outcomes from the European multicentre GHOST-EU registry. EuroIntervention. 2015; 10(10): 1144–1153.
  24. Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, Metzger DC, et al. Everolimus-Eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(20): 1905–1915.
  25. Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, Metzger C, et al. 3-year clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffolds: the ABSORBIII trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(23): 2852–2862.
  26. Wykrzykowska J, Kraak R, Hofma S, et al. Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(24): 2319–2328.
  27. Cassese S, Byrne RA, Ndrepepa G, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2016; 387(10018): 537–544.
  28. Stone GW, Gao R, Kimura T, et al. 1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016; 387(10025): 1277–1289.
  29. Ali ZA, Serruys PW, Kimura T, 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): 760–772.
  30. Ali ZA, Gao R, Kimura T, et al. Three-Year outcomes with the absorb bioresorbable scaffold: individual-patient-data meta-analysis from the ABSORB randomized trials. Circulation. 2018; 137(5): 464–479.
  31. Kang SH, Gogas BD, Jeon KH, et al. Long-term safety of bioresorbable scaffolds: insights from a network meta-analysis including 91 trials. EuroIntervention. 2018; 13(16): 1904–1913.
  32. Onuma Y, Sotomi Y, Shiomi H, et al. Two-year clinical, angiographic, and serial optical coherence tomographic follow-up after implantation of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and an everolimus-eluting metallic stent: insights from the randomised ABSORB Japan trial. EuroIntervention. 2016; 12(9): 1090–1101.
  33. Räber L, Brugaletta S, Yamaji K, et al. Very late scaffold thrombosis: intracoronary imaging and histopathological and spectroscopic findings. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66(17): 1901–1914.
  34. Räber L, Onuma Y, Brugaletta S, et al. Arterial healing following primary PCI using the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) versus the durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent (XIENCE) in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the randomised TROFI II study. EuroIntervention. 2016; 12(4): 482–489.
  35. Dziewierz A, Siudak Z, Rakowski T, et al. The impact of multiple stent implantation in the infarct-related artery on one-year clinical outcomes of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Data from the Polish NRDES Registry. Kardiol Pol. 2016; 74(8): 717–725.
  36. Kerkmeijer LS, Tenekecioglu E, Wykrzykowska JJ. Stent thrombosis in patients with drug‑‑eluting stents and bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: the feared complication. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2018; 128(1): 52–59.
  37. Sotomi Y, Suwannasom P, Serruys PW, et al. Possible mechanical causes of scaffold thrombosis: insights from case reports with intracoronary imaging. EuroIntervention. 2017; 12(14): 1747–1756.
  38. Moriyama N, Shishido K, Tanaka Y, et al. Neoatherosclerosis 5 Years After Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 71(17): 1882–1893.
  39. Puricel S, Cuculi F, Weissner M, et al. Bioresorbable coronary scaffold thrombosis: multicenter comprehensive analysis of clinical presentation, mechanisms, and predictors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67(8): 921–931.
  40. Ortega-Paz L, Capodanno D, Gori T, 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): 2110–2117.
  41. Serruys PW, Onuma Y. Dmax for sizing, PSP-1, PSP-2, PSP-3 or OCT guidance: interventionalist's jargon or indispensable implantation techniques for short- and long-term outcomes of Absorb BRS? EuroIntervention. 2017; 12(17): 2047–2056.
  42. Yamaji K, Räber L, Windecker S. What determines long-term outcomes using fully bioresorbable scaffolds: the device, the operator or the lesion? EuroIntervention. 2017; 12(14): 1684–1687.
  43. Capodanno D, Angiolillo DJ. Antiplatelet therapy after implantation of Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: a review of the published data, practical recommendations, and future directions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(5): 425–437.
  44. Dudek D, Rzeszutko Ł, Onuma Y, et al. Vasomotor response to nitroglycerine over 5 years follow-up after everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(8): 786–795.
  45. Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Sotomi Y, et al. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial. Lancet. 2016; 388(10059): 2479–2491.
  46. Capodanno D. Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Coronary Intervention: Unmet Needs and Evolution. Korean Circ J. 2018; 48(1): 24–35.
  47. Mattesini A, Bartolini S, Sorini Dini C, et al. The DESolve novolimus bioresorbable Scaffold: from bench to bedside. J Thorac Dis. 2017; 9(Suppl 9): S950–S958.
  48. Nef HM, Wiebe J, Foin N, et al. A new novolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffold: Present status and future clinical perspectives. Int J Cardiol. 2017; 227: 127–133.
  49. Mattesini A, Boeder N, Valente S, et al. Absorb vs. DESolve: an optical coherence tomography comparison of acute mechanical performances. EuroIntervention. 2016; 12(5): e566–e573.
  50. Wiebe J, Dörr O, Ilstad H, et al. Everolimus- versus novolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: a matched comparison. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(5): 477–485.
  51. Abizaid A, Costa RA, Schofer J, et al. Serial Multimodality Imaging and 2-Year Clinical Outcomes of the Novel DESolve Novolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold System for the Treatment of Single De Novo Coronary Lesions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(6): 565–574.
  52. Barreira G, Costa JR, Costa R, et al. Serial intravascular ultrasound evaluation of the DESolve™ novolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffold system. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 [Epub ahead of print].
  53. Nef H, Wiebe J, Boeder N, et al. A multicenter post-marketing evaluation of the Elixir DESolve Novolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffold system: First results from the DESolve PMCF study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 [Epub ahead of print].
  54. Gunes HM, Gokdeniz T, Kizilirmak Yilmaz F, et al. Real-life data regarding acute procedural success and 1-year clinical outcome of desolve bioresorbable scaffolds. J Interv Cardiol. 2017; 30(3): 189–194.
  55. Abizaid A, Carrié D, Frey N, et al. 6-month clinical and angiographic outcomes of a novel radiopaque sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: the FANTOM II study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(18): 1832–1838.
  56. Rapetto C, Leoncini M. Magmaris: a new generation metallic sirolimus-eluting fully bioresorbable scaffold: present status and future perspectives. J Thorac Dis. 2017; 9(Suppl 9): S903–S913.
  57. Haude M, Ince H, Abizaid A, et al. Safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de-novo coronary artery lesions (BIOSOLVE-II): 6 month results of a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, first-in-man trial. Lancet. 2016; 387(10013): 31–39.
  58. Haude M, Ince H, Abizaid A, et al. Sustained safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 12-month clinical results and angiographic findings of the BIOSOLVE-II first-in-man trial. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(35): 2701–2709.
  59. Haude M, Ince H, Kische S, et al. Sustained safety and clinical performance of a drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold up to 24 months: pooled outcomes of BIOSOLVE-II and BIOSOLVE-III. EuroIntervention. 2017; 13(4): 432–439.
  60. Garcia-Garcia HM, Haude M, Kuku K, et al. In vivo serial invasive imaging of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold (Magmaris - DREAMS 2G) in de novo coronary lesions: Insights from the BIOSOLVE-II First-In-Man Trial. Int J Cardiol. 2018; 255: 22–28.
  61. Tenekecioglu E, Torii R, Sotomi Y, et al. The effect of strut protrusion on shear stress distribution: hemodynamic insights from a prospective clinical trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(17): 1803–1805.
  62. Tenekecioglu E, Serruys PW, Onuma Y, et al. Randomized comparison of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold and mirage microfiber sirolimus-eluting scaffold using multimodality imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(11): 1115–1130.
  63. Seth A, Onuma Y, Costa R, et al. First-in-human evaluation of a novel poly-L-lactide based sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold for the treatment of de novo native coronary artery lesions: MeRes-1 trial. EuroIntervention. 2017; 13(4): 415–423.
  64. Wu Y, Shen Li, Ge L, et al. Six-month outcomes of the XINSORB bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold in treating single de novo lesions in human coronary artery. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 87 Suppl 1: 630–637.
  65. Han Y, Xu Bo, Fu G, et al. A randomized trial comparing the neovas sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and metallic everolimus-eluting stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11(3): 260–272.
  66. Bartuś S, Januszek R, Legutko J, et al. Long-term effects of rotational atherectomy in patients with heavy calcified coronary artery lesions: a single-centre experience. Kardiol Pol. 2017; 75(6): 564–572.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., Świętokrzyska 73 street, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl