Mechanical properties of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to the metallic everolimus-eluting stent. Issue 1 (December 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dalos, Daniel; Gangl, Clemens; Roth, Christian; Krenn, Lisa; Scherzer, Sabine; Vertesich, Markus; Lang, Irene; Maurer, Gerald; Neunteufl, Thomas; Berger, Rudolf; Delle-Karth, Georg
• Is Part Of: BMC cardiovascular disorders. Volume 16:Issue 1(2016)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 7
• Publication Date: 2016-12
• Subjects: Bioresorbable Scaffold -- Drug-Eluting Stent -- Optical Coherence Tomography; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1186/s12872-016-0296-1
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1471-2261

Abstract

Abstract Background Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) represent an innovative treatment option for coronary artery disease. Clinical and angiographic results seem promising, however, data on its immediate procedural performance are still scarce. The aim of our study was to assess the mechanical properties of BVS by Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) in clinical routine. Methods Post-implantation OCT images of 40 BVS were retrospectively compared to those of 40 metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES). Post-procedural device related morphological features were assessed. This included incidences of gross underexpansion and the stent eccentricity index (SEI, minimum/maximum diameter) as a measure for focal radial strength. Results Patients receiving BVS were younger than those with EES (54.0 ± 11.2 years versus 61.7 ± 11.4 years, p = 0.012), the remaining baseline, vessel and lesion characteristics were comparable between groups. Lesion pre-dilatation was more frequently performed and inflation time was longer in the BVS than in the EES group (n = 34 versusn = 23, p = 0.006 and 44.2 ± 12.8 versus 25.6 ± 8.4 seconds, p < 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in maximal inflation pressures and post-dilatation frequencies with non-compliant balloons between groups. Whereas gross device underexpansion was not significantly different, SEI was significantly lower in the BVS group (n = 12 (30 %) versusn = 14 (35 %), p = 0.812 and 0.69 ± 0.08 versus 0.76 ± 0.09, p < 0.001, respectively). There was no difference in major adverse cardiac event-rate at six months. Conclusion Our data show that focal radial expansion was significantly reduced in BVS compared to EES in a clinical routine setting using no routine post-dilatation protocol. Whether these findings have impact on scaffold mid-term results as well as on clinical outcome has to be investigated in larger, randomized trials.