Armazones vasculares bioabsorbibles en la práctica habitualresultados a largo plazo

  1. Ricardo Mori Junco 1
  2. Luis Furuya-Kanamori 2
  3. Pablo Salinas Sanguino 1
  4. L. Nombela Franco 1
  5. Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo 1
  6. Hernán D. Mejía Rentería 1
  7. Nieves Gonzalo 1
  8. Javier Escaned 1
  9. María J. Pérez Vizcayno 1
  10. Antonio Fernández-Ortiz 1
  11. Carlos Macaya Miguel 1
  12. Iván Javier Núñez Gil 1
  1. 1 Cardiología Intervencionista, Instituto Cardiovascular, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, España
  2. 2 Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Revista:
REC: Interventional Cardiology

ISSN: 2604-7276,  2604-7306

Año de publicación: 2020

Volumen: 2

Número: 3

Páginas: 168-174

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.24875/RECIC.M20000098 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: REC: Interventional Cardiology

Resumen

Introducción y objetivos: Las publicaciones sugieren que los armazones vasculares bioabsorbibles (AVB) conllevan un exceso de complicaciones trombóticas. Se describen los resultados en la vida real y a largo plazo de una serie de pacientes a los que se implantó un AVB Absorb (Abbott Vascular, EE.UU.). Métodos: Se analizaron 213 pacientes consecutivos que recibieron al menos un AVB entre mayo de 2012 y diciembre de 2016. El objetivo principal del estudio fue la incidencia de fracaso del vaso diana, un evento compuesto que incluye infarto de miocardio, revascularización del vaso diana y muerte cardiaca. Resultados: El 75% de los pacientes eran varones (edad media, 61,4 años). La causa más común de ingreso fue el infarto sin elevación del ST (53,52%). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 44 meses [28 meses]. La incidencia del evento primario fue del 6,57% durante los primeros 24 meses y del 7,98% al final del seguimiento. Respecto al dispositivo, hubo 6 casos (2,81%) de trombosis (definitiva, probable o posible) y 10 casos (4,69%) de reestenosis. Los pacientes con antecedentes de diabetes mellitus (HR = 1,72; IC95%, 1,01-2,95; p = 0,05) o con anticoagulación oral crónica (HR = 5,71; IC95%, 1,12-28,94; p = 0,04) tuvieron mayor riesgo de fracaso del vaso diana. Conclusiones: En esta serie de pacientes, la incidencia de fracaso del vaso diana fue comparable a la descrita previamente en ensayos clínicos aleatorizados. Los eventos adversos fueron más frecuentes en los primeros 2 años de seguimiento y en presencia de mayor comorbilidad cardiovascular.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 1. Smits PC, Vlachojannis GJ, McFadden EP, et al. Final 5-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice:The COMPARE Trial (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1157-1165.
  • 2. Byrne RA, Stone GW, Ormiston J, Kastrati A. Coronary balloon angioplasty, stents, and scaffolds. Lancet. 2017;390:781-792.
  • 3. Ellis SG, Riaz H. Bioresorbable stents:The future of interventional cardiology?Cleve Clin J Med. 2016;83:S18-S23.
  • 4. Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, Metzger DC, et al. Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1905-1915.
  • 5. Ormiston JA, Serruys PW, Regar E, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB):a prospective open-label trial. Lancet. 2008;371:899-907.
  • 6. Serruys PW, Garcia-Garcia HM, Onuma Y. From metallic cages to transient bioresorbable scaffolds:change in paradigm of coronary revascularization in the upcoming decade?Eur Heart J. 2012;33:16-25.
  • 7. Serruys PW, Katagiri Y, Sotomi Y, et al. Arterial Remodeling After Bioresorbable Scaffolds and Metallic Stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:60-74.
  • 8. 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;388:2479-2491.
  • 9. Rampat R, Mayo T, Hildick-Smith D, Cockburn J. A randomized trial comparing two stent sizing strategies in coronary bifurcation treatment with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds –The Absorb Bifurcation Coronary (ABC) trial. Cardiovasc Revascularization Med. 2019;20:43-49.
  • 10. Mitomo S, Naganuma T, Fujino Y, et al. Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds for the Treatment of Chronic Total Occlusions. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e004265.
  • 11. Abbott Laboratories. Abbott Receives CE Mark Approval for World's First Drug Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold for Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease. Disponible en: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/abbott-receives-ce-mark-approval-for-worlds-first-drug-eluting-bioresorbable-vascular-scaffold-for-treatment-of-coronary-artery-disease-113197364.html. Consultado 25 Ago 2019.
  • 12. Wykrzykowska JJ, Kraak RP, Hofma SH, et al. Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2319-2328.
  • 13. Kerkmeijer LSM, Tijssen RYG, Hofma SH, et al. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in routine PCI:three-year clinical outcomes from the AIDA trial. EuroIntervention. 2019;15:603-606.
  • 14. 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;387:1277-1289.
  • 15. Katsikis A, Serruys PW. Bioresorbable scaffolds versus metallic stents in routine PCI:the plot thickens. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:2296-2300.
  • 16. 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. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:1591-1601.
  • 17. Nuñez Gil IJ, Bas M, Fernández-Ortiz A, et al. Long term experience with a novel interventional cardiology network model:Learned lessons. J Hosp Adm. 2016;5:87-94.
  • 18. Byrne RA, Alfonso F, Schneider S, et al. Prospective, randomized trial of bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary stenting for myocardial infarction:The Intracoronary Scaffold Assessment a Randomized evaluation of Absorb in Myocardial Infarction (ISAR-Absorb MI) trial. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:167-176.
  • 19. 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;10:1144-1153.
  • 20. Tijssen RYG, Kraak RP, Hofma SH, et al. Complete two-year follow-up with formal non-inferiority testing on primary outcomes of the AIDA trial comparing the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with the XIENCE drug-eluting metallic stent in routine PCI. EuroIntervention. 2018;14:e426-e433.
  • 21. Chevalier B, Onuma Y, Boven AJ Van. Randomised comparison of a bioresorbable everolimus- eluting scaffold with a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de novo native coronary artery lesions:the 2-year clinical outcomes of the ABSORB II trial. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:1102-1107.
  • 22. Alvarez M, Applegate RJ. Early and Late Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Thrombosis:Size Matters. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:2372-2374.
  • 23. Yamaji K, Brugaletta S, SabatéM, et al. Effect of Post-Dilatation Following Primary PCI With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent Implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:1867-1877.
  • 24. 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;12:2110-2117.
  • 25. Lipinski MJ, Escarcega RO, Baker NC, et al. Scaffold Thrombosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With ABSORB Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:12-24.
  • 26. Alfonso F, Cuesta J. Very Late Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Thrombosis:Smoke or Fire?JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:38-41.
  • 27. Miyazaki T, Ruparelia N, Kawamoto H, Figini F, Latib A, Colombo A. Clinical outcomes following “off-label“versus “established“indications of bioresorbable scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease in a real-world population. EuroIntervention. 2016;11:1475-1478.
  • 28. Puricel S, Cuculi F, Weissner M, et al. Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold Thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:921-931.
  • 29. Brugaletta S, Gori T, Low AF, et al. Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction:1-year results of a propensity score matching comparison:the BVS-EXAMINATION Study (bioresorbable vascular scaffold - a clinical evaluation of everolimus eluting coronary stents in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:189-197.
  • 30. Caixeta A, Campos CM, Felix C, et al. Predictors of long-term adverse events after Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation:a 1,933-patient pooled analysis from international registries. EuroIntervention. 2019; 15:623-630.
  • 31. IJsselmuiden AJJ, Zwaan EM, Oemrawsingh RM, et al. Appropriate use criteria for optical coherence tomography guidance in percutaneous coronary interventions:Recommendations of the working group of interventional cardiology of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology. Neth Heart J. 2018;26:473-483.
  • 32. Bangalore S, Toklu B, Patel N, Feit F, Stone GW. Newer-Generation Ultrathin Strut Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Older Second-Generation Thicker Strut Drug-Eluting Stents for Coronary Artery Disease. Circulation. 2018; 138:2216-2226.
  • 33. Seth A, Onuma Y, Chandra P, et al. Three-year clinical and two-year multimodality imaging outcomes of a thin-strut sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold:MeRes-1 trial. EuroIntervention. 2019;15:607-614.
  • 34. Fernández-Rodríguez D, Brugaletta S, Otsuki S, SabatéM. Acute Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold thrombosis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction:to stent or not to stent?EuroIntervention. 2014;10:600;discussion 600.
  • 35. Tantry US, Navarese EP, Bliden KP, Gurbel PA. Acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel hyporesponsiveness following acute coronary syndromes. Kardiol Pol. 2018;76:1312-1319.
  • 36. Cayla G, Koning R, Fajadet J, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions with the Absorb Bioresorbable vascular scaffold in real life:1-year results from the FRANCE ABSORB registry. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2019;112: 113-123.
  • 37. Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:213-260.
  • 38. Núñez-Gil IJ, Echavarría M, Escaned J, Biagioni C, Feltes G, Fernández- Ortiz A. Bioresorbable stent restenosis:new devices, novel situations. J Invasive Cardiol. 2014;26:E164-6.
  • 39. Longo G, Granata F, Capodanno D, et al. Anatomical features and management of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds failure:A case series from the GHOST registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;85:1150-1161.
  • 40. Nakatani S, Onuma Y, Ishibashi Y, et al. Early (before 6 months), late (6-12 months) and very late (after 12 months) angiographic scaffold restenosis in the ABSORB Cohort B trial. EuroIntervention. 2015;10:1288-1298.
  • 41. Räber L, Brugaletta S, Yamaji K, et al. Very Late Scaffold Thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:1901-1914.
  • 42. Chua S-K, Lo H-M, Chiu C-Z, Shyu K-G. Use of CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores to predict subsequent myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in patients with acute coronary syndrome:data from Taiwan acute coronary syndrome full spectrum registry. PLoS One. 2014;9:e111167.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet