open access
Efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
, 1, 1, 1
Affiliations- Department of Cardiology, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
open access
Abstract
Background: Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were considered to be beneficial for coronary bifurcation lesions regarding the avoidance of lateral branch opening incarceration after complete absorption. However, data is limited in this setting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the short (6-month) and medium-term (1-year) outcomes of BRS in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane library databases were searched to find the studies of BRS implantation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. The effective outcome was target lesion revascularization. The safety outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and cardiac death. Results: A total of 1204 patients involved in 12 studies were included. The pooled estimate rate of target lesion revascularization as efficacy outcome was highly consistent between 6-month and 1-year follow-up, which was 4.74% (95% CI 2.36–9.54%, I2 = 41.5%, p = 0.14) and 4.37% (95% CI 3.05–5.69%, I2 = 4.6%, P = 0.39). The pooled estimated rate of major adverse cardiovascular events as safety outcome was 5.50% and 7.31% for both 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The pooled estimated rate of target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and cardiac death at 1-year follow-up was 5.92%, 2.52%, 1.69%, and 0.42%. Conclusions: The application of BRS for coronary bifurcation lesions is acceptable in efficacy outcome, but the high rate of scaffold thrombosis remains of concern (Registered by PROSPERO, CRD42019140341).
Abstract
Background: Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were considered to be beneficial for coronary bifurcation lesions regarding the avoidance of lateral branch opening incarceration after complete absorption. However, data is limited in this setting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the short (6-month) and medium-term (1-year) outcomes of BRS in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane library databases were searched to find the studies of BRS implantation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. The effective outcome was target lesion revascularization. The safety outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and cardiac death. Results: A total of 1204 patients involved in 12 studies were included. The pooled estimate rate of target lesion revascularization as efficacy outcome was highly consistent between 6-month and 1-year follow-up, which was 4.74% (95% CI 2.36–9.54%, I2 = 41.5%, p = 0.14) and 4.37% (95% CI 3.05–5.69%, I2 = 4.6%, P = 0.39). The pooled estimated rate of major adverse cardiovascular events as safety outcome was 5.50% and 7.31% for both 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The pooled estimated rate of target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and cardiac death at 1-year follow-up was 5.92%, 2.52%, 1.69%, and 0.42%. Conclusions: The application of BRS for coronary bifurcation lesions is acceptable in efficacy outcome, but the high rate of scaffold thrombosis remains of concern (Registered by PROSPERO, CRD42019140341).
Keywords
bioresorbable scaffolds, coronary bifurcation lesions, percutaneous coronary intervention, meta-analysis
Supp./Additional Files (3)
About this articleTitle
Efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Journal
Issue
Article type
Original Article
Pages
563-573
Published online
2021-04-09
Page views
5118
Article views/downloads
815
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Cardiol J 2022;29(4):563-573.
Keywords
bioresorbable scaffolds
coronary bifurcation lesions
percutaneous coronary intervention
meta-analysis
Authors
Xi-Ying Liang
Yan Li
Wen-Jiao Zhang
Xuan Qiao
Rong-Rong Yang
Zhi-Lu Wang
References (31)- Lassen JF, Holm NR, Banning A, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: 11th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2016; 12(1): 38–46.
- Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group, ESC Scientific Document Group. Considerations for the choice between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention as revascularization strategies in major categories of patients with stable multivessel coronary artery disease: an accompanying article of the task force of the 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019; 40(2): 204–212.
- McFadden EP, Stabile E, Regar E, et al. Late thrombosis in drug-eluting coronary stents after discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. Lancet. 2004; 364(9444): 1519–1521.
- Colleran R, Byrne RA. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in coronary bifurcation lesions: only in expert hands. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2016; 69(6): 543–546.
- Stankovic G, Lassen JF. When and how to use BRS in bifurcations? EuroIntervention. 2015; 11 Suppl V: V185–V187.
- Iqbal J, Onuma Y, Ormiston J, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds: rationale, current status, challenges, and future. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(12): 765–776.
- De Paolis M, Felix C, van Ditzhuijzen N, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds implanted in coronary bifurcation lesions: Impact of polymeric wide struts on side-branch impairment. Int J Cardiol. 2016; 221: 656–664.
- Wiebe J, Dörr O, Bauer T, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold implantation for the treatment of bifurcation lesions - Implications from early clinical experience during daily practice. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2016; 17(5): 313–317.
- Ormiston JA, Kassab G, Finet G, et al. Bench testing and coronary artery bifurcations: a consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2018; 13(15): e1794–e1803.
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6(7): e1000097.
- Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000; 283(15): 2008–2012.
- Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(20): 2551–2567.
- Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Academic Research Consortium. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation. 2007; 115(17): 2344–2351.
- Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25(9): 603–605.
- Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004; 328(7454): 1490.
- Elabbassi W, Chowdhury MA, Hatala R. Use of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold technology in treating coronary bifurcation lesions: A report about long-term clinical results and review of available literature. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2019; 120(8): 545–551.
- Grundeken MJ, Hassell ME, Kraak RP, et al. Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold in combination with the Tryton dedicated coronary bifurcation stent: evaluation using two- and three-dimensional optical coherence tomography. EuroIntervention. 2015; 11(8): 877–884.
- Holck EN, Fox-Maule C, Barkholt TO, et al. Procedural findings and early healing response after implantation of a self-apposing bioresorbable scaffold in coronary bifurcation lesions. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019; 35(7): 1199–1210.
- Kawamoto H, Latib A, Ruparelia N, et al. Clinical outcomes following bioresorbable scaffold implantation for bifurcation lesions: Overall outcomes and comparison between provisional and planned double stenting strategy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 86(4): 644–652.
- Naganuma T, Colombo A, Lesiak M, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold use for coronary bifurcation lesions: A substudy from GHOST EU registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 89(1): 47–56.
- Ojeda S, Pan M, Suárez de Lezo J, et al. Patency of coronary side branches covered by an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: clinical outcomes and computed tomography scan follow-up. EuroIntervention. 2016; 11(11): e1283–e1290.
- Paradies V, Vlachojannis GJ, Royaards KJ, et al. Angiographic and midterm outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold for coronary bifurcation lesions. Am J Cardiol. 2018; 122(12): 2035–2042.
- Suárez de Lezo J, Martín P, Pan M, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: immediate results and 1-year follow-up. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2016; 69(6): 554–562.
- Tanaka A, Jabbour RJ, Kawamoto H, et al. Preliminary report of clinical outcomes after single crossover bioresorbable scaffold implantation without routine side branch strut dilation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 88(6): 865–870.
- Tanaka A, Latib A, Kawamoto H, et al. Clinical outcomes following bifurcation double-stenting with bioresorbable scaffolds. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 88(6): 854–862.
- Nishio S, Kosuga K, Igaki K, et al. Long-term (>10 Years) clinical outcomes of first-in-human biodegradable poly-l-lactic acid coronary stents: Igaki-Tamai stents. Circulation. 2012; 125(19): 2343–2353.
- Stone GW, Ellis SG, Gori T, et al. ABSORB IV Investigators. Blinded outcomes and angina assessment of coronary bioresorbable scaffolds: 30-day and 1-year results from the ABSORB IV randomised trial. Lancet. 2018; 392(10157): 1530–1540.
- 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.
- Ferenc M, Buettner HJ, Gick M, et al. Clinical outcome after percutaneous treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions using first or second generation of drug-eluting stents. Clin Res Cardiol. 2016; 105(3): 230–238.
- Lee JM, Hahn JY, Kang J, et al. Differential prognostic effect between first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents in coronary bifurcation lesions: patient-level analysis of the korean bifurcation pooled cohorts. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(10): 1318–1331.
- Muramatsu T, Onuma Y, García-García HM, et al. Incidence and short-term clinical outcomes of small side branch occlusion after implantation of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: an interim report of 435 patients in the ABSORB-EXTEND single-arm trial in comparison with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in the SPIRIT first and II trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6(3): 247–257.
