Recommendations for the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions

Background To eliminate some of the potential late limitations of permanent metallic stents, the bioresorbable coronary stents or ‘bioresorbable vascular scaffolds’ (BVS) have been developed. Methods We reviewed all currently available clinical data on BVS implantation. Results Since the 2015 position statement on the appropriateness of BVS in percutaneous coronary interventions, several large randomised trials have been presented. These have demonstrated that achieving adequate 1 and 2 year outcomes with these first-generation BVS is not straightforward. These first adequately powered studies in non-complex lesions showed worse results if standard implan- tation techniques were used for these relatively thick scaffolds. Post-hoc analyses hypothesise that outcomes similar to current drug-eluting stents are still possible if aggressive lesion preparation, adequate sizing and high-pressure postdilatation are implemented rigorously. As long as this has not been confirmed in prospective studies the usage should be restricted to experienced centres with continuous outcome monitoring. For more complex lesions, results are even more disappointing and usage should be discouraged. When developed, newer generation scaffolds with thinner struts or faster resorption rates are expected to improve outcomes. In the meantime prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, beyond one year) is recommended in an individu-alised approach for patients treated with current generation BVS. Conclusion The new 2017 recommendations downgrade and limit the use of the current BVS to experienced centres within dedicated registries using the updated implantation protocol and advise the prolonged usage of DAPT. In line with these recommendations the manufacturer does not supply devices to the hospitals without such registries in place

Safety of optical coherence tomography in daily practice: a comparison with intravascular ultrasound

Previous studies have reported the safety and feasibility of both time-domain optical coherence tomography (TD-OCT) and Fourier-domain OCT (FD-OCT) in highly selected patients and clinical settings. However, the generalizability of these data is limited, and data in unselected patient populations reflecting a routine cathlab practice are lacking. We compared safety of intracoronary FD-OCT imaging to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging in a large real-world series of consecutive patients who underwent invasive imaging during coronary catheterization in our centre. This is a prospective, single-centre registry of patients scheduled for coronary angiography or intervention undergoing intracoronary imaging with FD-OCT or IVUS between April 2008 and December 2013. Intra-procedural and major in-hospital adverse events that could be possibly related to invasive imaging were registered routinely by the operator as part of our clinical report and prospectively recorded in our database. These events were retrospectively individually adjudicated by an independent safety committee. Between April 2008 and December 2013, 13 418 diagnostic or interventional coronary catheterization procedures were performed. Of these, 1142 procedures used OCT and 2476 procedures used IVUS. Invasive imaging-related complications were rare, did not differ between the two imaging methods (OCT: n = 7, 0.6%; IVUS: n = 12, 0.5%; P = 0.6), and were self-limiting after retrieval of the imaging catheter or easily treatable in the catheterization laboratory. No major adverse events, prolongation of hospital stay, or permanent patient harm was observed. FD-OCT is safe in an unselected and heterogeneous group of patients with varying clinical settings