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

ACC-2025 Congress Second Day Key Studies

BHF PROTECT-TAVI (Kharbanda RK, Kennedy J, Dodd M, et al.)The largest randomized  trial carried out across 33 UK centers between 2020 and 2024, assessing...

ACC 2025 | FAME 3: FFR Guided PCI vs CABG 5 Year Outcomes.

Earlier studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) have shown fewer events at long term for the surgical strategy.  However,...

CRABBIS Trial: Comparison of Different Provisional Stenting Sequences

Provisional stenting (PS) is the gold standard for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in most patients with coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL). Moreover, recent studies such...

Andromeda Trial: Meta-Analysis of Drug Coated Balloon vs. DES in Small Vessel DeNovo Lesions

The use of coronary stents vs plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), has allowed to reduce recoil and limiting flow dissection which were major limitation...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

ACC 2025 | BHF PROTECT-TAVI: Are Cerebral Protection Systems Necessary in TAVI?

TAVI has seen a steady increase in use, though stroke continues to be one of its unwanted complications, mostly ischemic and, less frequently, hemorrhagic. The...

ACC-2025 Congress Second Day Key Studies

BHF PROTECT-TAVI (Kharbanda RK, Kennedy J, Dodd M, et al.)The largest randomized  trial carried out across 33 UK centers between 2020 and 2024, assessing...

ACC 2025 | FAME 3: FFR Guided PCI vs CABG 5 Year Outcomes.

Earlier studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) have shown fewer events at long term for the surgical strategy.  However,...