DOI: 10.4244/EIJV15I1A5

Should we stop using bioresorbable scaffolds in coronary revascularisation?

Antonio Mangieri1, MD; Antonio Colombo1, MD

After the first positive results for the treatment of coronary lesions using bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS), the Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI (AIDA) trial and the three-year clinical outcomes of the ABSORB III trial have demonstrated an increased risk of scaffold thrombosis using the Absorb™ BRS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) compared with the conventional everolimus drug-eluting stent in contemporary cohorts of patients1,2. When implanting current Absorb BRS important considerations need to be kept in mind. The device is, by structure design and performance, more thrombogenic than current second-generation drug-eluting stents. The only way to make the performance of the Absorb BRS non-inferior to current DES is to optimise the immediate stenting procedure (IVUS, predilatation, post-dilatation, IVUS, etc.) and to utilise the most aggressive drugs to inhibit platelet aggregation. The causes of the higher rate of thrombosis with the Absorb were only partially understood and some concerns have been raised about the optimal preparation of the lesion and insufficient post-dilatation, as the residual diameter stenosis was at least 30% in patients with BRS thrombosis1. Longer rather than shorter dual antiplatelet therapy may be required, considering that 79% of patients with BRS thrombosis did not receive dual antiplatelet therapy at the time of the event1. Considering the lack of advantage with respect to clinical safety, difficulties in scaffold deliverability, longer procedural times and the devices needed to ensure an optimal final BRS implantation, little justification exists to prefer these devices over modern and safe drug-eluting metallic stents. The new guidelines on coronary revascularisation discourage the use of BRS outside of clinical studies with a class III level of evidence C recommendation3. However, the guidelines statement is supported only by clinical data on the Absorb and does not take into account data about newer generations of BRS. New-generation BRS have promising futures that could contribute to cutting the rate of adverse clinical events observed in previous trials. New devices with a smaller footprint, less thrombogenicity (e.g., magnesium), faster reabsorption and advanced mechanical properties had to overcome the limitations of the Absorb scaffold (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Challenges of the first-generation bioresorbable scaffold. DAPT: dual antiplatelet therapy

As pointed out by Katagiri et al, new studies with the next-generation BRS show promising results and, even if no long-term follow-up is available, we should be optimistic about the future of the new-generation BRS, removing the negative concept of “class effect” applied to BRS4. Moreover, a meticulous lesion preparation has also been demonstrated to reduce the rate of device-related clinical adverse events at long-term follow-up5.

Gheorghe et al report the long-term follow-up of 33 chronic total occlusions (CTO) treated with Absorb BRS using a dedicated implantation technique6. At three years, the rate of target lesion failure was 3%; an increase of the scaffold diameters from 12 to 36 months was observed, thus indicating a possible positive vessel remodelling with vasomotion documented in 70% of the lesions.

Insights from the BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT study by Hioki et al confirmed the good results obtained with the predilation, sizing and post-dilation (PSP) implantation technique plus thrombectomy in BRS implants during acute coronary syndromes with ST elevation7.

Even if no clear advantage was observed at one-year follow-up, the dedicated implantation technique was significantly associated with better post-procedural minimum lumen diameter and maximum footprint. This finding reinforces the concept that good lesion preparation, meticulous implantation supported by intracoronary imaging and an accurate post-dilation reduce the rate of BRS-related clinical events5. The BRS technology may be ready for a “step-by-step” comeback, as suggested by Katagiri et al. We believe that the recommendations of the new guidelines do not help the development of new BRS technologies, put strong limitations on the use of BRS platforms (even with the Conformité Européenne [CE] mark), thus discouraging the collection of clinical experiences with newer platforms. The interventionalist should be aware of the possible risks related to the use of this technology but not discouraged from using “new-generation BRS” that have been shown to give new hope for the future development of this technology. We cannot dismiss the need for new BRS technology that can be utilised with the same implantation steps as current metallic stents with non-inferior immediate and long-term event rates. In addition, we need to clarify the role of resorption and thrombosis by defining the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy. Some of these attributes are present in new-generation BRS8, limiting current concerns to the Absorb device.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

Volume 15 Number 1
May 20, 2019
Volume 15 Number 1
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

10.4244/EIJV16I2A16 Jun 12, 2020
Bioresorbable scaffolds: did we jump the gun?
Waksman R and Forrestal B
free

Debate

10.4244/EIJ-E-23-00015 Jun 19, 2023
Bioresorbable coronary scaffolds are ready for a comeback: pros and cons
Stone GW et al
free

10.4244/EIJV13I13A242 Jan 19, 2018
Polymeric bioresorbable coronary scaffolds: the hype is over, but the dream lives on
Pyxaras S and Wijns W
free

EXPERT REVIEW

10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00499 Aug 25, 2017
State of the art: the inception, advent and future of fully bioresorbable scaffolds
Katagiri Y et al
free

10.4244/EIJV13I7A115 Sep 20, 2017
Bioresorbable scaffolds: reflections after a setback - losing a battle does not mean losing the war!
Colombo A and Azzalini L
free

10.4244/EIJV15I16A254 Mar 20, 2020
Bioresorbable scaffolds and STEMI: an ideal setting, but still vacant
Spaulding C
free

10.4244/EIJV17I12A159 Dec 17, 2021
Scaffold thrombosis: what is to blame?
Waksman R and Bhogal S
free

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-24-00044 Sep 16, 2024
Serial intracoronary imaging to predict efficacy and safety of magnesium-based resorbable scaffolds
Räber L and Kakizaki R
free

10.4244/EIJV11I2A25 Jun 19, 2015
BRS in complex lesions: massaging (and messaging) the right pressure points
Seth A et al
free
Trending articles
225.68

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00426 Dec 3, 2021
Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary artery disease
Lindahl B et al
free
105.78

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00018 Dec 4, 2023
Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations
Lunardi M et al
free
77.85

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00840 Sep 2, 2024
Aortic regurgitation: from mechanisms to management
Baumbach A et al
free
68.7

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00545 Sep 20, 2022
Coronary lithotripsy for the treatment of underexpanded stents: the international; multicentre CRUNCH registry
Tovar Forero M et al
free
47.8

NEW INNOVATION

10.4244/EIJ-D-15-00467 Feb 20, 2018
Design and principle of operation of the HeartMate PHP (percutaneous heart pump)
Van Mieghem NM et al
free
45.3

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-18-01126 Aug 29, 2019
New-generation mechanical circulatory support during high-risk PCI: a cross-sectional analysis
Ameloot K et al
free
43.65

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00590 Dec 4, 2023
Prognostic impact of cardiac damage staging classification in each aortic stenosis subtype undergoing TAVI
Nakase M et al
free
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 7.6
2023 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2024)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved