Total amount: € 0,00
Official Journal of the Italian Society of Angiology and Vascular Pathology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,752
Online ISSN 1827-1618
NEW BIORESORBABLE TECHNOLOGY IN INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY
Giuseppe MARCHESE 1, Robert PETR 2, Petr TOUSEK 2, Petr WIDIMSKY 2, Viktor KOCKA 2
1 Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy; 2 Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
BACKGROUND: Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) represent an exciting and novel coronary intervention technology. BVS implantation could play an important role in the acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) setting, with mid- and long-term follow-up data still scarce.
METHODS: PRAGUE-19 is a prospective double-center single arm study that tests the performance and safety of BVS implantation during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in the STEMI setting. During the enrollment period 70 patients were included, quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was done immediately after BVS implantation and optical coherence tomography (OCT) study was suggested but not mandatory; subsequently serial clinical follow-up was scheduled and research computed tomography (CT) angiography at 1 year was performed. The current study focused on a group of 22 patients who had complete multi-imaging data (QCA and OCT immediately post-procedure and CT at 1 year after implantation) and aimed to analyze the quantitative measurements of these different techniques.
RESULTS: All 25 BVS implanted in 22 patients were widely patent at 1-year CT angiography. Immediately after pPCI, QCA measurements of vessel size were smaller than OCT with statistical significance: mean reference vessel diameter (RVD) was respectively 3.1±0.4 versus 3.4±0.5 mm (P<0.001), mean minimum lumen diameter (MLD) 2.5±0.3 versus 3.0±0.3 mm (P<0.001) and mean BVS diameter 2.8±0.3 versus 3.26±0.29 mm (P=0.001). Mean RVD and reference vessel area (RVA) were larger at 1 year CT angiography in comparison to baseline OCT (3.4±0.5 mm versus 3.76±0.45 mm, P=0.009, and 9.27±2.7 mm2 versus 11.28±2.62 mm2, P=0.01, respectively) and MLD was also larger at follow-up: 2.96±0.29 mm versus 3.09±0.53 (P=0.077). However, the mean percent area stenosis (parameter not influenced by possible difference between different methods) measured with OCT immediately after pPCI and with CT angiography at 1 year did not show any difference (20.2±23.9% versus 24.8±17.8%, P=0.478).
CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with OCT, QCA largely underestimates luminal diameters and may interfere with BVS proper sizing. CT angiography did not identify any evidence of binary restenosis, confirming the effective anti-restenotic properties of BVS at mid-term follow-up.