Home > Riviste > Minerva Cardiology and Angiology > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2019 October;67(5) > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2019 October;67(5):374-9



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo



Minerva Cardioangiologica 2019 October;67(5):374-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4725.19.04854-0


lingua: Inglese

Long-term clinical outcomes of direct absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in acute coronary syndrome

Michal WEGIEL 1, 2, Lukasz RZESZUTKO 1, Pawel KLECZYNSKI 1, 2, Wojciech ZASADA 1, Rafal DEPUKAT 1, Tomasz RAKOWSKI 1, 2, Jacek LEGUTKO 2, Andrzej SURDACKI 2, Dariusz DUDEK 1, 2, Stanislaw BARTUS 1, 2

1 Second Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Cracow, Poland; 2 Institute of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Cracow, Poland

BACKGROUND: Preferred technique for bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation included high pressure predilation. Data about direct BVS implantation in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients are scarce.
METHODS: Analysis of 90 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) treated with primary PCI with Absorb deployment between 2013-2016 in a single center. In 45 patients, scaffolds were implanted in the direct technique, other 45 patients underwent Absorb deployment after balloon predilation.
RESULTS: Follow-up was available in 100% of patients with mean duration of 32±11 months. No cardiac death or scaffold thrombosis were observed in both groups. In the direct group, no target lesion revascularization (TLR) was reported. In the predilation arm, TLR occurred in 4 (9%) patients (P=0.12). Target vessel revascularization (TVR) was observed in 1 (2%) case in the direct group and in 6 (13%) patients from the predilation group (P=0.11). Target vessel MI was reported in one patient from each group. In an intention to treat analysis, we observed significantly higher rates of TVR (15% vs. 2%; P<0.043) and TLR (10% vs. 0%; P=0.038) in the predilation arm. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis did not show significant differences in TLR, TVR and device oriented composite endpoint (a combination of cardiac death, target vessel MI and ischemia driven TLR) between patients treated with both methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Direct Absorb implantation in patients with ACS may be feasible and safe.

KEY WORDS: Myocardial infarction; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Patient outcome assessment

inizio pagina