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) — Yuki Ishibashi (2015) | RDL Network
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)
КАРДИОЛОГИЯ УЗБЕКИСТАНА 8(13): 1715-1726
Article 2015 English
Authors
YI
Yuki Ishibashi
SN
Shimpei Nakatani
YS
Yohei Sotomi
Abstract
2 min read
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)
Yuki Katagiri, Yoshinobu Onuma, Taku Asano, Ply Chichareon, Carlos Collet, Yosuke Miyazaki, Jan J. Piek, Joanna J. Wykrzykowska, Alexandre Abizaid, John A. Ormiston, Bernard Chevalier, Patrick W. Serruys
Takashi Muramatsu, Yoshinobu Onuma, Robert‐Jan van Geuns, Bernard Chevalier, Tejas Patel, Ashok Seth, Roberto Diletti, Héctor M. García‐García, Cécile Dorange, Susan Veldhof, Wai-Fung Cheong, Yukio Ozaki, Robert Whitbourn, Antonio L. Bartorelli, Gregg W. Stone, Alexandre Abizaid, Patrick W. Serruys
Discussion(0)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.