Good outcomes of bioresorbable scaffolds in off-label cases

Original Title: Clinical outcomes following “off-label” versus “established” indication of bioresorbable scaffolds for treatment of coronary artery disease in a real-world population.

Reference: Tadashi Miyazaki, et al EuroIntervention 2016;11:475-478.

 

Courtesy of Dr. Carlos Fava.

 

Bioresorbable scaffolds (BSB) have shown their benefit in different studies, but there is little information available on “off label” indications in the real world.

The study analyzed 189 patients with 260 lesions receiving BSB; only 21 (11.1%) were “on-label” indications and 168 (88.9%) with 225 lesions were “off-label” indications. The device used was the everolimus eluting scaffold Absorb (Abbott Vascular).

Patients in the “off-label” group were more often diabetic (28.6% vs 4.8%; p=0.03), with higher SYNTAX score (16.9 vs. 11.5; p=0.01), more lesions B2/C (54.3% vs. 80%; p=0.002), longer lesions (28 mm. vs. 13 mm p=0.01) and bigger number of implanted stents (1.17 vs. 1.59; p=<0.001).

Bifurcation lesions were similar in both groups. 4.4% of rotational atherectomy was used in the “off-label” patients to prepare the lesion.

While in hospital, there were no differences in MACE combined events, with an only event in the “off label” group due to a thrombus in the scaffold two hours post procedure.

At one year, neither were there differences in target vessel revascularization or target lesion failure. Two patients “off-label” presented stent thrombosis and received emergency PCI with second generation DES.

 

Conclusion

In the real world, 88.9% of patients received BSB with an “off-label” indication. “Off-label” indication of BSB seems to be associated to an acceptable evolution considering the complexity of the analyzed group.

 

Editorial Comment

This analysis shows that BSB assessed in real world patients with complex lesions offer a very good performance compared to second generation DES.

 

Courtesy of Dr. Carlos Fava. Interventional Cardiologist. Favaloro Foundation – Buenos Aires, Argentina.

More articles by this author

Coronary Artery Disease in Aortic Stenosis: CABG + SAVR vs. TAVR + PCI: Data from Spanish Centers

Multiple randomized studies have shown comparable or superior efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).  However, many of...

Evolution of Small Balloon-Expandable Valves

Small aortic rings (20 mm) have posed a significant challenge for both surgery and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to their association with an...

TCT 2024 | FAVOR III EUROPA

The study FAVOR III EUROPA, a randomized trial, included 2,000 patients with chronic coronary syndrome, or stabilized acute coronary syndrome, and intermediate lesions. 1,008...

TCT 2024 – ECLIPSE: Randomized Study of Orbital Atherectomy vs Conventional PCI in Severely Calcified Lesions

Coronary calcification is associated with stent under-expansion and increased risk of both early and late adverse events. Atherectomy is an essential tool for uncrossable...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation: Surgical vs. Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair

While highly prevalent, tricuspid regurgitation is a notably undertreated valvulopathy. Its progression has been associated with higher mortality and significant disability. According to the...

ACCESS-TAVI: Comparing Post TAVR Vascular Closure Devices

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a well-established option to treat elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Technical advances and device development...

Endovascular Treatment of Iliofemoral Disease for the Improvement of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a significant risk factor in the development of difficult-to-treat conditions, such as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)....