Home > Journals > Minerva Cardioangiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2017 February;65(1) > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2017 February;65(1):1-7

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Cite this article as

MINERVA CARDIOANGIOLOGICA

A Journal on Heart and Vascular Diseases


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 0,695


eTOC

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE  


Minerva Cardioangiologica 2017 February;65(1):1-7

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4725.16.04072-X

Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Radiation exposure during the implantation of bioabsorbable vascular scaffolds versus drug-eluting stents in non-complex coronary lesions: a matched-cohort study

Benedikt SCHRAGE, Moritz SEIFFERT, Kai MÜLLERLEILE, Elvin ZENGIN, Edith LUBOS, Christoph SINNING, Ulrich SCHÄFER, Karsten SYDOW, Stefan BLANKENBERG, Dirk WESTERMANN

Department of General and Interventional Cardiology, University Heart Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany


PDF  


BACKGROUND: Bioabsorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) are a novel option for the treatment of coronary lesions in patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes. We aimed to identify the influence of BVS implantation on radiation exposure and procedural outcomes compared to drug-eluting stents (DES) in daily clinical practice.
METHODS: A retrospective single-center study was performed in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with BVS from 2013 to 2014. Only patients with exclusive BVS implantation (N.=78 procedures) were compared with a 2:1 matched cohort of exclusive DES-treated patients in the same period (N.=156 procedures). We used a four-step protocol to reduce radiation exposure in all procedures. Furthermore, a 12-month clinical follow-up was performed.
RESULTS: Patients had similar baseline characteristics due to matching. Radiation exposure (1826 vs. 2167 cGy*cm2, P=0.673), procedure time (73 vs. 65 minutes, P=0.574), target vessel revascularization (1.3 vs. 1.3%, p=1.000 for PCI; 1.3 vs. 0.6%, P=0.616 for CABG), cardiovascular death (0.0 vs. 2.6%, P=0.304) or all-cause death (0.0 vs. 3.2%, P=0.172) were similar after implantation of BVS vs. DES. However, exposure to contrast agent (166 vs. 139 mL, P=0.028) was significantly higher in the BVS group.
CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of BVS in combination with a simple four-step protocol is a feasible option for interventional treatment of non-complex coronary lesions without significant impact on radiation exposure or outcome measures in daily clinical routine.


KEY WORDS: Absorbable implants - Bioprosthesis - Blood vessel prosthesis - Drug-eluting stents -Radiation exposure - Percutaneous coronary intervention

top of page

Publication History

Issue published online: November 30, 2016
Article first published online: June 1, 2016
Manuscript accepted: May 31, 2016
Manuscript revised: May 24, 2016
Manuscript received: January 5, 2016

Cite this article as

Schrage B, Seiffert M, Müllerleile K, Zengin E, Lubos E, Sinning C, et al. Radiation exposure during the implantation of bioabsorbable vascular scaffolds versus drug-eluting stents in non-complex coronary lesions: a matched-cohort study. Minerva Cardioangiol 2017;65:1-7. DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4725.16.04072-X

Corresponding author e-mail

d.westermann@uke.de