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

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

Publishing options
eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

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