Axial traction magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the glenohumeral joint in healthy volunteers: initial experience.

E. Garwood,R. Souza,Amy Zhang,Alan L. Zhang,C. Ma,T. Link,D. Motamedi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.12.013

IF: 2.42

2017-03-01

Clinical Imaging

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Mid-to-long term clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in coronary artery diseases: a meta-analysis of 7321 patients

Xian-peng WU,Yi LU,Ting-ting FU,Xin-yang HU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13191/j.chj.2018.0075

2018-01-01

Abstract:AIM To compare the mid-to-long term clinical outcomes between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) and everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in coronary artery diseases.METHODS The present investigation systematically searched electronic databases and abstracts or presentations from the latest international cardiovascular conferences up to January 8th 2018.RESULTS In total,11 studies with 7321 patients were enrolled,including 7 randomized controlled trials and 4 propensity score-matched designs.Pooled analysis revealed that the patients undergoing BVS implantation had a higher rate of definite or probable stent/scaffold thrombosis (ST) (odds ratio (OR) =3.08,95％confidence interval (CI):2.04 to 4.66,P ＜ 0.01),which was mainly attributed to the higher risks of early ST (OR =2.26,95％CI:1.26 to4.03,P=0.006) and very late ST (OR =4.46,95％CI:2.01 to 9.89,P＜0.01).Also,targetlesion failure (TLF) was more frequent in BVS (OR =1.34,95％ CI:1.11 to 1.60,P =0.002),which was related to the higher rates of target vessel myocardial infarction (OR =1.7 1,95％ CI:1.31 to 2.23,P ＜0.01) and ischemia driventarget lesion revascularization (OR =1.51,95％ CI:1.15 to 2.00,P =0.004) accompanied with BVS implantation.Myocardial infarction increased in BVS compared with EES (OR =1.52,95％ CI:1.22 to 1.90,P ＜0.01),but there were no significant differences in patient-oriented composite endpoint,all death,and all revascularization between BVS and EES.CONCLUSION Our meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with EES,BVS is associated with compromised clinical outcomes.Additional clinical outcomes of long-term large-scale clinical trials are warranted to further evaluate the use of BVS.
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Xinlin Zhang,Li Zhu,Zhong-Hai Wei,Qing-Qing Zhu,Jianzhong Qiao,Qing Dai,Wei Huang,Xiao-Hong Li,Jun Xie,L. Kang,Lian Wang,Biao Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-0006

IF: 39.2

2016-01-01

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:Background: Theoretically, the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) could eliminate stent thrombosis and improve outcomes in patients having percutaneous coronary intervention. Purpose: To estimate the incidence of stent thrombosis after BVS implantation and to compare the efficacy and safety of BVSs versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EESs) in adults having percutaneous coronary intervention. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings, and relevant Web sites from inception through 20 January 2016. Study Selection: 6 randomized, controlled trials and 38 observational studies, each involving at least 40 patients with BVS implantation. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted study data and evaluated study risk of bias. Data Synthesis: The pooled incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis after BVS implantation was 1.5 events per 100 patient-years (PYs) (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.0 events per 100 PYs) (126 events during 8508 PYs). Six randomized trials that directly compared BVSs with EESs showed a non-statistically significant increased risk for stent thrombosis (odds ratio [OR], 2.05 [CI, 0.95 to 4.43]; P = 0.067) and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.38 [CI, 0.98 to 1.95]; P = 0.064) with BVSs. The 6 observational studies that compared BVSs with EESs showed increased risk for stent thrombosis (OR, 2.32 [CI, 1.06 to 5.07]; P = 0.035) and myocardial infarction (OR, 2.09 [CI, 1.23 to 3.55]; P = 0.007) with BVSs. The relative rates of all-cause and cardiac death, revascularization, and target lesion failure were similar for BVSs and EESs. Limitation: Scarce comparative data, no published data from large trials with long-term follow-up, and limited quality and incomplete reporting of observational studies. Conclusion: Compared with EESs, BVSs do not eliminate and might increase risks for stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction in adults having percutaneous coronary intervention. Results of large trials with long-term follow-up are critically needed to establish the safety or at least the noninferiority of BVSs compared with EESs.
Three‐year Clinical Outcomes of the Novel Sirolimus‐eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold for the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Prospective Patient‐level Pooled Analysis of NeoVas Trials

Xiaozeng Wang,Yang Li,Guosheng Fu,Bo Xu,Yujie Zhou,Xi Su,Huiliang Liu,Zheng Zhang,Bo Yu,Ling Tao,Qun Zheng,Lang Li,Kai Xu,Yaling Han,NeoVas OPC Investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30518

IF: 2.3

2023-01-01

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:OBJECTIVES:We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of the novel NeoVas sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) for the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease.BACKGROUND:The long-term safety and efficacy of the novel NeoVas BRS are still needed to be elucidated.METHODS:A total of 1103 patients with de novo native coronary lesions for coronary stenting were enrolled. The primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) was defined as a composite of cardiac death (CD), target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or ischemia-driven-target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR).RESULTS:A three-year clinical follow-up period was available for 1,091 (98.9%) patients. The cumulative TLF rate was 7.2% with 0.8% for CD, 2.6% for TV-MI, and 5.1% for ID-TLR. Additionally, 128 (11.8%) patient-oriented composite endpoint and 11 definite/probable stent thromboses (1.0%) were recorded.CONCLUSIONS:The extended outcomes of the NeoVas objective performance criterion trial demonstrated a promising 3-year efficacy and safety of the NeoVas BRS in low-risk patients with low complexity in terms of lesions and comorbidities.
Mid- And Long-Term Outcome Comparisons Of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

Xin-Lin Zhang,Qing-Qing Zhu,Li-Na Kang,Xue-Ling Li,Biao Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-1101

IF: 39.2

2017-01-01

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:Background: Percutaneous coronary interventions to implant bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVSs) were designed to reduce the late thrombotic events that occur with metallic stents.Purpose: To estimate the incidence of scaffold thrombosis after BVS implantation and compare everolimus-eluting BVSs with everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EESs) in terms of safety and efficacy at mid-and long-term follow-up in adults who had a percutaneous coronary intervention.Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, and relevant Web sites from inception until 20 May 2017, without language restriction.Study Selection: 7 randomized trials and 38 observational studies (each with a minimum of 6 months and 100 patient-years of follow-up) in adults with coronary artery disease who had a BVS or an EES and reported scaffold or stent thrombosis (main outcome) or other secondary outcomes (such as death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization).Data Extraction: 2 reviewers independently extracted study data, rated study quality, and assessed strength of evidence.Data Synthesis: The pooled incidence of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis after BVS implantation was 1.8% (95% CI, 1.5% to 2.2%) at a median follow-up of 1 year (41 studies, 21 884 patients) and 0.8% (CI, 0.5% to 1.3%) beyond 1 year (14 studies, 4688 patients). Seven trials involving 5578 patients that directly compared BVSs with EESs showed an increased risk for definite or probable scaffold thrombosis (odds ratio [OR], 3.40 [CI, 2.01 to 5.76]) with BVSs at a median follow-up of 25 months. Increased risks were present at early (prominently subacute), late, and very late stages, and odds beyond 1 year were almost double those seen within 1 year. Bioresorbably vascular scaffolds increased risks for myocardial infarction (OR, 1.63 [CI, 1.26 to 2.10]), target lesion revascularization (OR, 1.31 [CI, 1.03 to 1.67]), and target lesion failure (OR, 1.37 [CI, 1.12 to 1.66]); the odds for these 3 end points also increased over time. The incidences of all-cause, cardiac, and noncardiac death and of target vessel and any revascularization did not differ.Limitation: Quality of observational studies was unclear, and some data were unpublished.Conclusion: Compared with EESs, BVSs increased the risks for scaffold thrombosis and other thrombotic events at mid-and long-term follow-up, and risks increased over time.
Efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Xi-Ying Liang,Yan Li,Wen-Jiao Zhang,Xuan Qiao,Rong-Rong Yang,Zhi-Lu Wang,XI-Ying Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5603/cj.a2021.0040

IF: 3.487

2021-04-09

Cardiology Journal

Abstract:Background: Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were considered to be beneficial for coronary bifurcation lesions regarding the avoidance of lateral branch opening incarceration after complete absorption. However, data is limited in this setting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the short (6-month) and medium-term (1-year) outcomes of BRS in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane library databases were searched to find the studies of BRS implantation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. The effective outcome was target lesion revascularization. The safety outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and cardiac death. Results: A total of 1204 patients involved in 12 studies were included. The pooled estimate rate of target lesion revascularization as efficacy outcome was highly consistent between 6-month and 1-year follow-up, which was 4.74% (95% CI 2.36–9.54%, I2 = 41.5%, p = 0.14) and 4.37% (95% CI 3.05–5.69%, I2 = 4.6%, P = 0.39). The pooled estimated rate of major adverse cardiovascular events as safety outcome was 5.50% and 7.31% for both 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The pooled estimated rate of target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and cardiac death at 1-year follow-up was 5.92%, 2.52%, 1.69%, and 0.42%. Conclusions: The application of BRS for coronary bifurcation lesions is acceptable in efficacy outcome, but the high rate of scaffold thrombosis remains of concern (Registered by PROSPERO, CRD42019140341).

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Yong Liu,Di Xiao,Yang Wu,Meng Li,Jia Liu,Rui Zhuang,Liyong Ma,Jingen Li,Lijing Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.974957

IF: 3.6

2022-10-29

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BRS with DES on clinical outcomes with at least 12 months follow-up. Electronic databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to 1 March 2022 were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome of this study was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) consisting of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Secondary outcomes were a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, all-cause death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) and the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization). The safety outcomes were definite/probable device thrombosis and adverse events. Results: Four randomized clinical trials including 803 participants with a mean age of 60.5 ± 10.8 years were included in this analysis. Patients treated with BRS had a higher risk of the DOCE (RR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.02–2.57, P = 0.04) and MACE (RR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.02–3.08, P = 0.04) compared with patients treated with DES. No significant difference on the POCE (RR 1.33, 95% CI: 0.89–1.98, P = 0.16) and the definite/probable device thrombosis (RR 1.31, 95% CI: 0.46–3.77, P = 0.61) were observed between BRS and DES. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: BRS was associated with a higher risk of DOCE and MACE compared with DES in patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction. Although this seems less effective in preventing DOCE, BRS appears as safe as DES. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=321501], identifier [CRD 42022321501].

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds — basic concepts and clinical outcome

Ciro Indolfi,Salvatore De Rosa,Antonio Colombo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2016.151

IF: 49.421

2016-09-29

Nature Reviews Cardiology

Abstract:Key PointsBioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) are the latest innovation in the field of coronary interventions and are emerging as a promising treatment for patients with coronary artery stenosesAvailable data from direct comparison in randomized studies showed similar clinical results in patients treated with BVS compared with the current generation of drug-eluting stentsAppropriate selection of target lesions and an appropriate implantation technique are crucial to achieving a good long-term result with the currently available devicesSome concerns remain about scaffold thrombosis and coronary restenosis

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Bio-resorbable polymer stents: a review of material progress and prospects

Sean McMahon,Nicky Bertollo,Eoin O’Cearbhaill,Jochen Salber,Luca Pierucci,Patrick Duffy,Thomas Durig,Vivian Bi,Wenxin Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2018.05.002

IF: 31.281

2018-01-01

Progress in Polymer Science

Abstract:Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) remains the leading cause of death in the developed world. The advent of drug-eluting Bio-resorbable Stents (BRSs) heralded a significant development in the field of CAD, representing a step-change in the treatment paradigm and offering significant improvements in patient outcome. But, as noted by a Task Force sanctioned by the European Commission in 2017, their widespread clinical deployment has primarily been hampered by a lack of randomised clinical trial data demonstrating improved efficacy over traditional permanent drug-eluting stents (DESs). To date, only the Abbott BVS, voluntarily withdrawn from sale in 2017, has undergone such rigorous evaluation, and which showed inferior outcomes at 2–3 years. This timely review paper addresses leading BRS polymer stent technologies to highlight the trends in design strategies and current technological advancements aimed at overcoming such performance limitations. This review examines the leading BRS technologies to gauge the progression of polymer materials technology and strategies in this field. To highlight emerging trends with respect to constituent materials, the developmental history of each stent is discussed briefly, providing context to progress. Many stent features that relate to material selection including material types, material combinations, drugs, architecture features, strut thickness, processing techniques and radiopacity are considered and compared. Following detailed review of these stents, materials and related features are summarised and discussed to highlight the changing clinical needs, current targets and challenges ahead.
Bioresorbable Scaffold: The Emerging Reality and Future Directions

Yohei Sotomi,Yoshinobu Onuma,Carlos Collet,Erhan Tenekecioglu,Renu Virmani,Neal S Kleiman,Patrick W Serruys

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.310275

2017-04-14

Abstract:In the era of drug-eluting stents, large-scale randomized trials and all-comer registries have shown excellent clinical results. However, even the latest-generation drug-eluting stent has not managed to address all the limitations of permanent metallic coronary stents, such as the risks of target lesion revascularization, neoatherosclerosis, preclusion of late lumen enlargement, and the lack of reactive vasomotion. Furthermore, the risk of very late stent, although substantially reduced with newer-generation drug-eluting stent, still remains. These problems were anticipated to be solved with the advent of fully biodegradable devices. Fully bioresorbable coronary scaffolds have been designed to function transiently to prevent acute recoil, but have retained the capability to inhibit neointimal proliferation by eluting immunosuppressive drugs. Nevertheless, long-term follow-up data of the leading bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb) are becoming available and have raised a concern about the relatively higher incidence of scaffold thrombosis. To reduce the rate of clinical events, improvements in the device, as well as implantation procedure, are being evaluated. This review will focus on the current CE-mark approved bioresorbable scaffolds, their basic characteristics, and clinical results. In addition, we summarize the current limitations of bioresorbable scaffold and their possible solutions.
Safety and Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice

Joo Myung Lee,Hyun Sung Joh,Ki Hong Choi,David Hong,Taek Kyu Park,Jeong Hoon Yang,Young Bin Song,Jin-Ho Choi,Seung-Hyuk Choi,Jin-Ok Jeong,Jong-Young Lee,Young Jin Choi,Jei-Keon Chae,Seung-Ho Hur,Jang-Whan Bae,Ju-Hyeon Oh,Kook-Jin Chun,Hyun-Joong Kim,Byung Ryul Cho,Doosup Shin,Seung Hun Lee,Doyeon Hwang,Hyun-Jong Lee,Ho-Jun Jang,Hyun Kuk Kim,Sang Jin Ha,Eun-Seok Shin,Joon-Hyung Doh,Joo-Yong Hahn,Hyeon-Cheol Gwon,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e34

2023-01-01

Journal of Korean Medical Science

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The risk of device thrombosis and device-oriented clinical outcomes with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was reported to be significantly higher than with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, optimal device implantation may improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving BVS. The current study evaluated mid-term safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS with meticulous device optimization under intravascular imaging guidance.METHODS: The SMART-REWARD and PERSPECTIVE-PCI registries in Korea prospectively enrolled 390 patients with BVS and 675 patients with DES, respectively. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years and the secondary major endpoint was patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) at 2 years.RESULTS: Patient-level pooled analysis evaluated 1,003 patients (377 patients with BVS and 626 patients with DES). Mean scaffold diameter per lesion was 3.24 ± 0.30 mm in BVS group. Most BVSs were implanted with pre-dilatation (90.9%), intravascular imaging guidance (74.9%), and post-dilatation (73.1%) at proximal to mid segment (81.9%) in target vessel. Patients treated with BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF (2.9% vs. 3.7%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.283, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487-3.378, P = 0.615) and 2-year POCO (4.5% vs. 5.9%, adjusted HR, 1.413, 95% CI, 0.663-3.012, P = 0.370) than those with DES. The rate of 2-year definite or probable device thrombosis (0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.424) was also similar. The sensitivity analyses consistently showed comparable risk of TVF and POCO between the 2 groups.CONCLUSION: With meticulous device optimization under imaging guidance and avoidance of implantation in small vessels, BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF and device thrombosis with DES.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02601404, NCT04265443.

medicine, general & internal
Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents on short- and mid-term target lesion outcomes in patients after PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yan-di Wan,Da-yang Wang,Wen-qi Deng,Si-jia Lai,Xian Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.949494

IF: 3.6

2022-09-09

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:Background: While current concerns about bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) are centered on late or very late scaffold thrombosis, less attention had been paid to short- and mid-term clinical outcomes. This review aimed to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes between BRS and drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared BRS vs. DES was conducted by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases from inception until 19 April 2022 (language limited to English or Chinese). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) within 12 months, defined as a composite of target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), and cardiac death. The secondary outcomes were in-stent diameter stenosis (DS%) provided by intraluminal imaging. Results: A total of 13 studies were eligible and were included in this review ( N = 9,702 patients). The follow-up duration ranged from 6 months to 1 year. A significantly higher rate of TLF [RR, 1.22, 95% CI (1.03, 1.44)] driven by the higher rate of TVMI [RR, 1.39, 95% CI (1.09, 1.76)] was observed in the BRS group than in the DES group. The risk of TLR and cardiac death was similar between the groups. Also, compared with the DES group, the BRS group had a significantly higher in-stent DS% within 1 year [MD = 5.23, 95%CI (3.43, 7.04); I 2 = 97%; p < 0.00001]. Conclusion: Bioresorbable scaffolds were associated with an increased risk of target lesion failure within 1 year as compared with DES, driven by the increased rates of target vessel myocardial infarction. Also, the in-stent DS% seemed to be higher with BRS. Therefore, BRS was inferior to DES in terms of target lesion outcomes at short- or mid-term follow-up. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=327966, PROSPERO (CRD42022327966).

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Long-term outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffolds

Kotaro Miyashita,Kai Ninomiya,Akihiro Tobe,Shinichiro Masuda,Nozomi Kotoku,Shigetaka Kageyama,Pruthvi C Revaiah,Tsung-Ying Tsai,Bo Wang,Scot Garg,Patrick W Serruys,Yoshinobu Onuma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14779072.2024.2375340

Abstract:Introduction: The higher scaffold thrombosis rates observed with the first-generation bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) compared to conventional drug-eluting stents were likely due in part to bioresorbable polymers having insufficient radial strength, necessitating larger strut profiles. Meta-analysis of the long-term outcomes from the first-generation Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) showed that this period of excess risk ended at 3 years. Therefore, current attention has been focused on improving early outcomes by increasing the scaffold's tensile strength and reducing strut thickness. Areas covered: This review summaries the lessons learned from the first-generation BRS. It updates the long-term clinical outcomes of trials evaluating the ABSORB BVS and metallic alloy-based BRS. In addition, it reviews the next-generation BRSs manufactured in Asia. Expert opinion: Critical areas to improve the performance and safety of biodegradable scaffolds include further development in material science, surface modification, delivery systems, and long-term follow-up studies.
Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Metallic Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: ABSORB China Trial.

Runlin Gao,Yuejin Yang,Yaling Han,Yong Huo,Jiyan Chen,Bo Yu,Xi Su,Lang Li,Hai-Chien Kuo,Shih-Wa Ying,Wai-Fung Cheong,Yunlong Zhang,Xiaolu Su,Bo Xu,Jeffery J. Popma,Gregg W. Stone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.054

IF: 24

2015-01-01

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract:BACKGROUND The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is designed to achieve results comparable to metallic drug-eluting stents at 1 year, with improved long-term outcomes. Whether the 1-year clinical and angiographic results of BVS are noninferior to current-generation drug-eluting stents has not been established.OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the angiographic efficacy and clinical safety and effectiveness of BVS in a randomized trial designed to enable approval of the BVS in China.METHODS Eligible patients with 1 or 2 de novo native coronary artery lesions were randomized to BVS or cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES) in a 1: 1 ratio stratified by diabetes and the number of lesions treated. Angiographic and clinical follow-up were planned at 1 year in all patients. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late loss (LL), powered for noninferiority with a margin of 0.15 mm.RESULTS A total of 480 patients were randomized (241 BVS vs. 239 CoCr-EES) at 24 sites. Acute clinical device success (98.0% vs. 99.6%; p = 0.22) and procedural success (97.0% and 98.3%; p = 0.37) were comparable in BVS- and CoCr-EES-treated patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of in-segment LL at 1 year was 0.19 +/- 0.38 mm for BVS versus 0.13 +/- 0.38 mm for CoCr-EES; the 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was 0.14 mm, achieving noninferiority of BVS compared with CoCr-EES (P-noninferiority = 0.01). BVS and CoCr-EES also had similar 1-year rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization; 3.4% vs. 4.2%, respectively; p = 0.62) and definite/probable scaffold/stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 0.0%, respectively; p = 1.00).CONCLUSIONS In the present multicenter randomized trial, BVS was noninferior to CoCr-EES for the primary endpoint of in-segment LL at 1 year. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [Absorb BVS] System in Chinese Population-ABSORB CHINA Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT]; NCT01923740) (C) 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
Current perspectives on bioresorbable scaffolds in coronary intervention and other fields

Xinlei Wu,Sijing Wu,Hideyuki Kawashima,Hironori Hara,Masafumi Ono,Chao Gao,Rutao Wang,Mattia Lunardi,Faisal Sharif,William Wijns,Patrick W. Serruys,Yoshinobu Onuma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2021.1904894

IF: 3.439

2021-03-30

Expert Review of Medical Devices

Abstract:Introduction: The first-generation bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) had a large strut profile to compensate for the insufficient radial strength of bioresorbable polymer materials, resulting in higher scaffold thrombosis rates than conventional drug-eluting stents. To improve the clinical safety and efficacy, the new generation BRSs have been improved by optimal structure design, post-processing of bioresorbable polymer materials, or altering bioresorbable metallic alloys.Areas covered: This review summarizes the lessons learned from the first-generation BRS, updates the clinical outcomes of trials evaluating ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold at long-term and bioresorbable metallic alloy-based devices, and examines recent outcomes of BRS treated in STEMI patients. This review also provides an overview of the current clinical data of seven BRSs manufactured in Asia, and of the BRSs extended application in other clinical arenas.Expert opinion: Drawbacks of the first-generation BRSs need to be addressed by the next generation of these stents with novel materials and technologies. Clinical research, including randomized controlled trials, are required to further evaluate BRSs application in coronary artery disease. The encouraging results of BRSs innovation applied in the peripheral arteries and gastrointestinal tracts support other potential clinical applications of BRS technology.

engineering, biomedical
Near-light photometric stereo using circularly placed point light sources

Chao Liu,S. Narasimhan,A. Dubrawski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCPHOT.2018.8368465

2018-05-04

Abstract:Most photometric stereo approaches assume distant or directional lighting and orthographic imaging. However, when the source is divergent and is near the object and the camera is projective, the image intensity of a Lambertian object is a non-linear function of both the unknown surface normals and the unknown distances of the source to the surface points. The resulting non-linear optimization is non-convex and highly sensitive to the initial guess. In this paper, we propose a two-stage near-light photometric stereo method using circularly placed point light sources (commonly seen in recent consumer imaging devices like NESTcam, Amazon Cloudcam, etc). We represent the scene using a 3D mesh and directly optimize the vertices of the mesh. This reduces the complexity of the relationship between surface normals and depths in the image formation model. In the first stage, we optimize the vertex positions using the differential images induced by small changes in light source position. This procedure yields a strong initial guess for the second stage that refines the estimations using the raw captured images. We propose an accurate calibration approach to estimate the positions of the sources. Our approach performs better on simulations and on real Lambertian scenes with complex shapes than the state-of-the-art method with near-field lighting.
Associations Between Female Reproductive Traits and Polychlorinated Biphenyl Sediment Concentrations in Wild Populations of Brown Bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus)

M. Farwell,K. Drouillard,D. Heath,T. Pitcher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-013-9938-9

2013-07-26

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

Abstract:
Safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CART)

Michele Pighi,Fabrizio Tomai,Simone Fezzi,Gabriele Pesarini,Alessandro Petrolini,Leonardo Spedicato,Giuseppe Tarantini,Marco Ferlini,Paolo Calabrò,Bruno Loi,Valeria Ferrero,Maria Natalia Tovar Forero,Joost Daemen,Flavio Ribichini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-023-02351-9

IF: 6.138

2024-01-04

Clinical Research in Cardiology

Abstract:Background Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is still the main drawback of heart transplantation (HTx) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a palliative measure because of the high incidence of failure. Objective This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) as potential novel therapeutic tool for the treatment of coronary stenoses in CAV. Methods This is a multicenter, single-arm, prospective, open-label study (CART, NCT02377648), that included patients affected by advanced CAV treated with PCI and second-generation ABSORB BRS (Abbott Vascular). The primary endpoint was the incidence of 12-month angiographic in-segment scaffold restenosis (ISSR). Secondary endpoints were the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 12- and 36-month follow-up and the incidence of ISSR at 36 months. A paired intracoronary imaging analysis at baseline and follow-up was also performed. Results Between 2015 and 2017 35 HTx patients were enrolled and treated for 44 coronary lesions with 51 BRSs. The primary endpoint occurred in 13.5% of the lesions (5/37), with a cumulative ISSR rate up to 3 years of 16.2% (6/37). Angiographic lumen loss was 0.40 ± 0.62 mm at 12 months and 0.53 ± 0.57 mm at 36 months. Overall survival rate was 91.4% and 74.3%, and MACEs incidence 14.2% and 31.4% at 12 and 36 months, respectively. At the paired intracoronary imaging analysis, a significant increase of the vessel external elastic membrane area in the treated segment and some progression of CAV proximally to the BRS were detected. Conclusions BRS-based PCI for the treatment of CAV is feasible and safe, with an ISSR incidence similar to what reported in retrospective studies with drug-eluting stents.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
[Research Progress of Bioresorbable Scaffold].

Qing Liu,Shujun Cui,Qinghong Zhao,Ming Chen,Bo Zheng,Yong Huo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-7104.2017.05.012

2017-01-01

Abstract:Bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) represents a new technique for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Through providing temporary support to the vessel, it guarantees patency and acute benefits of the vessel in the early treatment stage. When completing its "mission", BRS gradually disappears by resorption. So it allows late vessel positive remodeling without "metal cage" effect and leaves only healed natural vessel after the full absorption, especially in the bifurcation lesion, the branch of the vessels can eventually achieve stent-free interference. This unique performance can not be achieved by the traditional permanent metal stent, so BRS has attracted more and more attention since its appearance. This article reviewed the research background, current status and challenges of BRS, then discussed its future development trends.
[Progress and prospect of electrospun silk fibroin in construction of tissue-engineering scaffold].

Ling Chen,Yabin Zhu,Yuanyuan Li,Yuxin Liu,Junyao Yu

2011-06-01

Abstract:Silk fibroin is a natural macromolecular fibroin. It has broad prospects in tissue engineering application due to its good physical and mechanical properties and good biocompatibility. This paper reviews its chemistry structure, property, the usage as matrix of tissue-engineering scaffold using electrospinning technology, and the influence on growth, proliferation and function of vascular endothelial cell, smooth muscle cell, keratinocyte and fibroblast. It also addresses the advantages and disadvantages of silk fibroin applied in tissue engineering study like artificial vascular, skin, bone stent etc. The potential applications on esophageal tissue engineering and regenerative medicine were discussed.
Long-Term Effects of Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents on Patients with Acute St-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Outcomes of 3-Year Clinical Follow-Up

Wang Chong-hui,Fang Quan,Zhang Shu-yang,Shen Zhu-jun,Fan Zhong-jie,Jin Xiao-feng,Zeng Yong,Liu Zhen-yu,Xie Hong-zhi,Yang Ming

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2012.16.001

IF: 6.133

2012-01-01

Chinese Medical Journal

Abstract:Background The long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) are unclear and controversial issues in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcome of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI with DES versus BMS implantation.Methods A total of 191 patients with acute STEMI undergoing PCI from Jan. 2005 to Dec. 2007 were enrolled. Patients received DES (n=83) or BMS (n=108) implantation in the infarction related artery according to physician's discretion. The primary outcome was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and stent thrombosis. The difference of MACE was observed between DES and BMS groups.Results The clinical follow-up duration was 3 years ((41.7 +/- 16.1) months). MACE occurred in 20 patients during three years follow-up. Logistic regression analysis showed that the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was an independent predictor for MACE in the follow-up period (P=0.0301). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (3.61% vs. 7.41%, P=0.2647), the incidence of myocardial infarction (0 vs. 0.93%, P=0.379) and stent thrombosis (1.20% vs. 1.85%, P=0.727) between the DES group and BMS group. The incidence of MACE was significantly lower in the DES group compared to the BMS group (4.82% vs. 14.81%, P=0.0253). The rate of TVR was also lower in the DES group (0 vs. 5.56%, P=0.029). In the DES group, there was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between sirolimus eluting stents (SES, n=73) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES, n=10) subgroups (2.74% vs. 20.00%, P>0.05).Conclusions This finding suggested that drug-eluting stents significantly reduced the need for revascularization in patients with acute STEMI, without increasing the incidence of death or myocardial infarction. Use of DES significantly decreased the incidence of MACE compared with BMS during the 3-year follow-up. Chin Med J 2012;125(16):2803-2806

Axial traction magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the glenohumeral joint in healthy volunteers: initial experience.

Mid-to-long term clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in coronary artery diseases: a meta-analysis of 7321 patients

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Three‐year Clinical Outcomes of the Novel Sirolimus‐eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold for the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Prospective Patient‐level Pooled Analysis of NeoVas Trials

Mid- And Long-Term Outcome Comparisons Of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds — basic concepts and clinical outcome

Bio-resorbable polymer stents: a review of material progress and prospects

Bioresorbable Scaffold: The Emerging Reality and Future Directions

Safety and Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice

Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents on short- and mid-term target lesion outcomes in patients after PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Long-term outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffolds

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Metallic Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: ABSORB China Trial.

Current perspectives on bioresorbable scaffolds in coronary intervention and other fields

Near-light photometric stereo using circularly placed point light sources

Associations Between Female Reproductive Traits and Polychlorinated Biphenyl Sediment Concentrations in Wild Populations of Brown Bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus)

Safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CART)

[Research Progress of Bioresorbable Scaffold].

[Progress and prospect of electrospun silk fibroin in construction of tissue-engineering scaffold].

Long-Term Effects of Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents on Patients with Acute St-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Outcomes of 3-Year Clinical Follow-Up