Coronary interventions

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: a biomechanical analysis of the ABSORB III Imaging substudy

EuroIntervention 2020;16:e989-e996. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-01128

Arnav Kumar
Arnav Kumar1, MD, MSCR; Bill D. Gogas1, MD, PhD; Elizabeth W. Thompson1, BS; Grady Murphy Burnett1, BS; David Molony1, PhD; Hossein Hosseini1, MD; Karthic Chandran1, MD; Adrien Lefieux1, PhD; Yasuhiro Honda2, MD; Joo Myung Lee1, MD, PhD; Patrick W. Serruys3, MD, PhD; Dean J. Kereiakes4, MD; Gregg W. Stone5, MD; Habib Samady1, MD
1. Andreas Gruentzig Cardiovascular Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; 2. Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford, CA, USA; 3. Department of Cardiology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland; 4. The Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 5. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

Aims: The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) has high rates of target lesion failure (TLF) at three years. Low wall shear stress (WSS) promotes several mechanisms related to device TLF. We investigated the impact of BVS compared to XIENCE V (XV) on coronary WSS after device deployment.

Methods and results: In the prospective, randomised, controlled ABSORB III Imaging study (BVS [n=77] or XV [n=36]), computational fluid dynamics were performed on fused angiographic and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) images of post-implanted vessels. Low WSS was defined as <1 Pa. There were no differences in demographics, clinical risks, angiographic reference vessel diameter or IVUS minimal lumen diameter between BVS and XV patients. A greater proportion of vessels treated with BVS compared to XV demonstrated low WSS across the whole device (BVS: 17/77 [22%] vs XV: 2/36 [6%], p<0.029). Compared to XV, BVS demonstrated lower median circumferential WSS (1.73 vs 2.21 Pa; p=0.036), outer curvature WSS (p=0.026), and inner curvature WSS (p=0.038). Similarly, BVS had lower proximal third WSS (p=0.024), middle third WSS (p=0.047) and distal third WSS (p=0.028) when compared to XV. In a univariable logistic regression analysis, patients who received BVS were 4.8 times more likely to demonstrate low WSS across the scaffold/stent when compared to XV patients. Importantly, in a multivariable linear regression model, hypertension (beta: 0.186, p=0.023), lower contrast frame count velocity (beta: -0.411, p<0.001), lower post-stent residual plaque burden (beta: -0.338, p<0.001), lower % underexpanded frames (beta: -0.170, p=0.033) and BVS deployment (beta: 0.251, p=0.002) remained independently associated with a greater percentage of stented coronary vessel areas exposed to low WSS.

Conclusions: In this randomised controlled study, the Absorb BVS was 4.8 times more likely than the XV metallic stent to demonstrate low WSS. BVS implantation, lower blood velocity and lower residual post-stent plaque burden were independently associated with greater area of low WSS.

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?

No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from

bioresorbable scaffoldsintravascular ultrasoundqcastent thrombosis
Coronary interventionsStents and scaffolds
Read next article
A randomised controlled trial of the sirolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer ultra-thin Supraflex stent versus the everolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer SYNERGY stent for three-vessel coronary artery disease: rationale and design of the Multivessel TALENT trial

Latest news