TY - JOUR
T1 - Relation between bioresorbable scaffold sizing using QCA-Dmax and long-term clinical outcomes in 1,232 patients from three study cohorts (ABSORB Cohort B, ABSORB EXTEND, and ABSORB II)
AU - Katagiri, Yuki
AU - Onuma, Yoshinobu
AU - Asano, Taku
AU - Chichareon, Ply
AU - Collet, Carlos
AU - Miyazaki, Yosuke
AU - Piek, Jan J.
AU - Wykrzykowska, Joanna J.
AU - Abizaid, Alexandre
AU - Ormiston, John A.
AU - Chevalier, Bernard
AU - Serruys, Patrick W.
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - Aims: This study sought to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes related to scaffold sizing based on quantitative coronary angiography. Methods and results: A total of 1,248 patients who received Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds in the ABSORB Cohort B, ABSORB EXTEND, and ABSORB II trials were included in the analysis. The incidence of MACE (a composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction [MI], and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation [ID-TLR]) was analysed according to the Dmax subclassification of oversized scaffold group versus non-oversized (any undersize) scaffold group. At three years, event rates were similar in both groups in MACE (9.4% vs. 9.8%, p=0.847), target vessel MI (5.2% vs. 4.8%, p=0.795), and ID-TLR (4.8% vs. 5.8%, p=0.445). Landmark analysis after one year showed that the non-oversized scaffold group had higher rates of MACE (3.2% vs. 6.9%, log-rank p=0.004), target vessel MI (0.7% vs. 2.7%, log-rank p=0.007), and ID-TLR (2.5% vs. 4.7%, log-rank p=0.041). Conclusions: Implantation of an undersized scaffold was associated with a higher risk of MACE between one and three years, while in the previous report an oversized scaffold was associated with a higher risk of MACE up to one year. This implies different mechanisms for early and late events after scaffold implantation.
AB - Aims: This study sought to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes related to scaffold sizing based on quantitative coronary angiography. Methods and results: A total of 1,248 patients who received Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds in the ABSORB Cohort B, ABSORB EXTEND, and ABSORB II trials were included in the analysis. The incidence of MACE (a composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction [MI], and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation [ID-TLR]) was analysed according to the Dmax subclassification of oversized scaffold group versus non-oversized (any undersize) scaffold group. At three years, event rates were similar in both groups in MACE (9.4% vs. 9.8%, p=0.847), target vessel MI (5.2% vs. 4.8%, p=0.795), and ID-TLR (4.8% vs. 5.8%, p=0.445). Landmark analysis after one year showed that the non-oversized scaffold group had higher rates of MACE (3.2% vs. 6.9%, log-rank p=0.004), target vessel MI (0.7% vs. 2.7%, log-rank p=0.007), and ID-TLR (2.5% vs. 4.7%, log-rank p=0.041). Conclusions: Implantation of an undersized scaffold was associated with a higher risk of MACE between one and three years, while in the previous report an oversized scaffold was associated with a higher risk of MACE up to one year. This implies different mechanisms for early and late events after scaffold implantation.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85050133120&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29667581
U2 - https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00301
DO - https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00301
M3 - Article
C2 - 29667581
SN - 1774-024X
VL - 14
SP - e1057-e1066
JO - Eurointervention
JF - Eurointervention
IS - 9
ER -