Angiographic maximal luminal diameter and appropriate deployment of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold as assessed by optical coherence tomography: an ABSORB cohort B trial sub-study

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) present different mechanical properties as compared to metallic platform stents. Therefore, the standard procedural technique to achieve appropriate deployment may differ.

Comparison between the first and second generation bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: a six month virtual histology study

To compare the intravascular ultrasound virtual histology (IVUS-VH) appearance of the polymeric struts of the first (Revision 1.0) and the second (Revision 1.1) generation bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS).

Dynamics of vessel wall changes following the implantation of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a multi-imaging modality study at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months

Aims: To assess observations with multimodality imaging of the Absorb bioresorbable everolimus-eluting vascular scaffold performed in two consecutive cohorts of patients who were serially investigated either at 6 and 24 months or at 12 and 36 months. Methods and results: In the ABSORB multicentre single-arm trial, 45 patients (cohort B1) and 56 patients (cohort B2) underwent serial invasive imaging, specifically quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), radiofrequency backscattering (IVUS-VH) and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Between one and three years, late luminal loss remained unchanged (6 months: 0.19 mm, 1 year: 0.27 mm, 2 years: 0.27 mm, 3 years: 0.29 mm) and the in-segment angiographic restenosis rate for the entire cohort B (n=101) at three years was 6%. On IVUS, mean lumen, scaffold, plaque and vessel area showed enlargement up to two years. Mean lumen and scaffold area remained stable between two and three years whereas significant reduction in plaque behind the struts occurred with a trend toward adaptive restrictive remodelling of EEM. Hyperechogenicity of the vessel wall, a surrogate of the bioresorption process, decreased from 23.1% to 10.4% with a reduction of radiofrequency backscattering for dense calcium and necrotic core. At three years, the count of strut cores detected on OCT increased significantly, probably reflecting the dismantling of the scaffold; 98% of struts were covered. In the entire cohort B (n=101), the three-year major adverse cardiac event rate was 10.0% without any scaffold thrombosis. Conclusions: The current investigation demonstrated the dynamics of vessel wall changes after implantation of a bioresorbable scaffold, resulting at three years in stable luminal dimensions, a low restenosis rate and a low clinical major adverse cardiac events rate.

The edge vascular response following implantation of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the XIENCE V metallic everolimus-eluting stent. First serial follow-up assessment at six months and two years: insights from the first-in-man ABSORB Cohort B and SPIRIT II trials

AIMS To assess serially the edge vascular response (EVR) of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to a metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES). METHODS AND RESULTS Non-serial evaluations of the Absorb BVS at one year have previously demonstrated proximal edge constrictive remodelling and distal edge changes in plaque composition with increase of the percent fibro-fatty (FF) tissue component. The 5 mm proximal and distal segments adjacent to the implanted devices were investigated serially with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), post procedure, at six months and at two years, from the ABSORB Cohort B1 (n=45) and the SPIRIT II (n=113) trials. Twenty-two proximal and twenty-four distal edge segments were available for analysis in the ABSORB Cohort B1 trial. In the SPIRIT II trial, thirty-three proximal and forty-six distal edge segments were analysed. At the 5-mm proximal edge, the vessels treated with an Absorb BVS from post procedure to two years demonstrated a lumen loss (LL) of 6.68% (-17.33; 2.08) (p=0.027) with a trend toward plaque area increase of 7.55% (-4.68; 27.11) (p=0.06). At the 5-mm distal edge no major changes were evident at either time point. At the 5-mm proximal edge the vessels treated with a XIENCE V EES from post procedure to two years did not show any signs of LL, only plaque area decrease of 6.90% (-17.86; 4.23) (p=0.035). At the distal edge no major changes were evident with regard to either lumen area or vessel remodelling at the same time point. CONCLUSIONS The IVUS-based serial evaluation of the EVR up to two years following implantation of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold shows a statistically significant proximal edge LL; however, this finding did not seem to have any clinical implications in the serial assessment. The upcoming imaging follow-up of the Absorb BVS at three years is anticipated to provide further information regarding the vessel wall behaviour at the edges.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold treatment induces the formation of neointimal cap that seals the underlying plaque without compromising the luminal dimensions: a concept based on serial optical coherence tomography data.

Aims: To evaluate the implications of an Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) on the morphology of the superficial plaques. Methods and results: Forty-six patients who underwent Absorb BVS implantation and 20 patients implanted with bare metal stents (BMS) who had serial optical coherence tomographic examination at baseline and follow-up were included in this analysis. The thin-capped fibroatheromas (TCFA) were identified in the device implantation regions and in the adjacent native coronary segments. Within all regions, circumferential locations of TCFA and calcific tissues were identified, and the neointimal thickness was measured at follow-up. At six to 12-month follow-up, only 8% of the TCFA detected at baseline were still present in the Absorb BVS and 27% in the BMS implantation segment (p=0.231). Sixty percent of the TCFA in native segments did not change their phenotype at follow-up. At short-term follow-up, significant reduction in the lumen area of the BMS was noted, which was higher compared to that reported in the Absorb BVS group (-2.11±1.97 mm2 vs. -1.34±0.99 mm2, p=0.026). In Absorb BVS, neointima tissue continued to develop at midterm follow-up (2.17±0.48 mm2 vs. 1.38±0.52 mm2, p<0.0001) and covered the underlying tissues without compromising the luminal dimensions (5.93±1.49 mm2 vs. 6.14±1.49 mm2, p=0.571) as it was accommodated by the expanded scaffold (8.28±1.74 mm2 vs. 7.67±1.28 mm2, p<0.0001). Conclusions: Neointimal tissue develops following either Absorb BVS or BMS implantation and shields lipid tissues. The neointimal response in the BMS causes a higher reduction of luminal dimensions compared to the Absorb BVS. Thus, Absorb BVS may have a value in the invasive re-capping of high-risk plaques.