Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Nov;8(13):1715-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.07.026.

Relation Between Bioresorbable Scaffold Sizing Using QCA-Dmax and Clinical Outcomes at 1 Year in 1,232 Patients From 3 Study Cohorts (ABSORB Cohort B, ABSORB EXTEND, and ABSORB II).

Author information

1
Thoraxcenter, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
2
Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
3
Thoraxcenter, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Northern Region Heart Center, Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
4
Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
5
St. Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.
6
Institut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud, Massy, France.
7
Instituto de Cardiologia Dante Pazzanese, São Paulo, Brazil.
8
Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
9
Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California.
10
Abbott Vascular, Diegem, Belgium.
11
Thoraxcenter, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: yoshinobuonuma@gmail.com.
12
International Centre for Cardiovascular Health, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

This study sought to investigate the clinical outcomes based on the assessment of quantitative coronary angiography-maximal lumen diameter (Dmax).

BACKGROUND:

Assessment of pre-procedural Dmax of proximal and distal sites has been used for Absorb scaffold size selection in the ABSORB studies.

METHODS:

A total of 1,248 patients received Absorb scaffolds in the ABSORB Cohort B (ABSORB Clinical Investigation, Cohort B) study (N = 101), ABSORB EXTEND (ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation) study (N = 812), and ABSORB II (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial) trial (N = 335). The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction [MI], and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) was analyzed according to the Dmax subclassification of scaffold oversize group versus scaffold nonoversize group.

RESULTS:

Of 1,248 patients, pre-procedural Dmax was assessed in 1,232 patients (98.7%). In 649 (52.7%) patients, both proximal and distal Dmax values were smaller than the nominal size of the implanted scaffold (scaffold oversize group), whereas in 583 (47.3%) of patients, the proximal and/or distal Dmax were larger than the implanted scaffold (scaffold nonoversize group). The rates of MACE and MI at 1 year were significantly higher in the scaffold oversize group than in the scaffold nonoversize group (MACE 6.6% vs. 3.3%; log-rank p < 0.01, all MI: 4.6% vs. 2.4%; log-rank p = 0.04), mainly driven by a higher MI rate within 1 month post-procedure (3.5% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.08). The independent MACE determinants were both Dmax smaller than the scaffold nominal size (odds ratio [OR]: 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 3.70; p < 0.01) and the implantation of overlapping scaffolds (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.17 to 3.80; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS:

Implantation of an oversized Absorb scaffold in a relatively small vessel appears to be associated with a higher 1-year MACE rate driven by more frequent early MI. (ABSORB Clinical Investigation, Cohort B [ABSORB Cohort B], NCT00856856; ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation [ABSORB EXTEND], NCT01023789; ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB II], NCT01425281).

KEYWORDS:

bioresorbable scaffold; major adverse cardiac event(s); maximal lumen diameter

PMID:
26585622
DOI:
10.1016/j.jcin.2015.07.026
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center