Compartmentalization and turnover of 131-I-labeled albumin and gamma globulin in horses.

D. R. Matteeuws,J. Kaneko,R. Loy,C. Cornelius,J. Wheat

American Journal of Veterinary Research

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.
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.
Tampons: a 1980 dilemma.

W. Ledger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.1980.11715592

1980-11-01

Postgraduate Medicine

Abstract:
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
Clinical Outcomes Prior to and Following Complete Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Resorption: Five-Year Follow-Up From the ABSORB III Trial.

Dean J Kereiakes,Stephen G Ellis,D Christopher Metzger,Ronald P Caputo,David G Rizik,Paul S Teirstein,Marc R Litt,Annapoorna Kini,Ameer Kabour,Steven O Marx,Jeffrey J Popma,Siok Hwee Tan,Divine E Ediebah,Charles Simonton,Gregg W Stone,Dean J. Kereiakes,Stephen G. Ellis,D. Chris Metzger,Ronald P. Caputo,David G. Rizik,Paul S. Teirstein,Marc R. Litt,Steven O. Marx,Jeffrey J. Popma,Divine E. Ediebah,Gregg W. Stone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042584

IF: 37.8

2019-11-25

Circulation

Abstract:Background: The Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) provides early drug delivery and mechanical support similar to metallic drug-eluting stents, followed by complete resorption in approximately 3 years with recovery of vascular structure and function. The ABSORB III trial demonstrated non-inferior rates of target lesion failure (TLF; cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [TVMI] or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year with BVS compared with cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES). Between 1 year and 3 years, and cumulative to 3 years adverse event rates (particularly TVMI and scaffold thrombosis [ST]) were increased after BVS. We sought to assess clinical outcomes after BVS through 5 years, including beyond the 3-year time point of complete scaffold resorption. Methods: Clinical outcomes from ABSORB III were analyzed by randomized device (intentionto-treat) cumulative to 5 years and between 3-5 years. Results: Rates of TLF, TVMI and ST were increased through 5-year follow-up with BVS compared with EES. However, between 3 and 5 years, reductions in the relative hazards of BVS compared with EES were observed, particularly for TLF (HR [95% CI] 0.82 [0.55, 1.24] versus 1.35 [1.02, 1.78]; p int =0.052) and ST (HR [95% CI] 0.26 [0.02, 2.86] versus 3.23 [1.25, 8.30];p int =0.056) compared to the 0-3 year time period. Conclusions: In the ABSORB III trial, cumulative 5-year adverse event rates were increased following BVS compared with EES. However, the period of excess risk for BVS ended at 3 years coincident with complete scaffold resorption. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT01751906

cardiac & cardiovascular systems,peripheral vascular disease
Impact of postdilatation on performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared with everolimus-eluting stents: A propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter "real-world" registry

Yoichi Imori,Fabrizio D'Ascenzo,Tommaso Gori,Thomas Münzel,Ugo Fabrizio,Gianluca Campo,Enrico Cerrato,L Christian Napp,Mario Iannaccone,Jelena R Ghadri,Elycia Kazemian,Ronald K Binder,Milosz Jaguszewski,Adam Csordas,Piera Capasso,Simone Biscaglia,Fedrico Conrotto,Ferdinando Varbella,Roberto Garbo,Fiorenzo Gaita,Paul Erne,Thomas F Lüscher,Claudio Moretti,Antonio H Frangieh,Christian Templin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2016.0052

Abstract:Background: Safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) and the role of postdilatation on outcome in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients compared with those of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) remain unknown. The aim of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of BRS with EES in ACS and to investigate the role of BRS postdilatation. Methods: Consecutive ACS patients undergoing BRS implantation in 8 centers were com-pared with those with EES before and after propensity score matching. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were the primary endpoint. Sensitivity analysis was performed according to postdilatation after BRS implantation. We enrolled 303 BRS and 748 EES patients; 215 from each group were com-pared after matching, and 117 (55.2%) BRS patients were treated with postdilatation. Results: After a median follow-up of 24.0 months, MACE rates were higher in BRS patients than in EES patients (9.3% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), mainly driven by TLR (6.1% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis increased in the BRS group (2.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.01). How-ever, after sensitivity analysis, MACE rates in BRS patients with postdilatation were signifi-cantly lower than in those without, comparable to EES patients (6.0% vs. 12.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001). The same trend was observed for TLR (3.4% vs. 8.4% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis rates were higher in both the BRS groups than in EES patients (2.6% vs. 3.2% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.045). Conclusions: Postdilatation appears effective when using BRS in ACS patients. MACE rates are comparable to those of EES, although scaffold thrombosis is not negligible. Randomized prospective studies are required for further investigation.
[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.
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:
Intravascular ultrasound predictors of long-term outcomes following ABSORB bioresorbable scaffold implantation: A pooled analysis of the ABSORB III and ABSORB Japan trials

Takeshi Nishi,Kozo Okada,Hideki Kitahara,Ryo Kameda,Masayasu Ikutomi,Shinji Imura,M Brooke Hollak,Paul G Yock,Jeffrey J Popma,Hajime Kusano,Wai-Fung Cheong,Krishnankutty Sudhir,Peter J Fitzgerald,Stephen G Ellis,Dean J Kereiakes,Gregg W Stone,Yasuhiro Honda,Takeshi Kimura,ABSORB III and ABSORB Japan Investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2021.03.005

Abstract:Background: The long-term prognostic impact of IVUS findings following Absorb BVS implantation remains uncertain. This study aimed to identify the IVUS predictors of long-term clinical outcomes following ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation from the pooled IVUS substudy cohorts of the ABSORB III and Japan trials. Methods: A total of 298 lesions in 286 patients were enrolled with 2:1 randomization to ABSORB BVS vs. cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents. This sub-analysis included 168 lesions of 160 patients in the Absorb arm whose post-procedural quantitative IVUS were available. The primary endpoint of this analysis was device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of target lesion failure, including cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The median follow-up duration was 4.9 [3.1-5.0] years. Results: During follow-up, DOCE occurred in 10.1% of lesions treated with Absorb BVS. Among several post-procedural IVUS indices associated with DOCE, non-uniform device expansion (defined as uniformity index = minimum / maximum device area) (hazard ratio 0.47 per 0.1 increase [95%CI 0.28 to 0.77]; p = 0.003) and residual reference plaque burden (hazard ratio 4.01 per 10% increase [95%CI 1.50 to 10.77]; p = 0.006) were identified as independent predictors of DOCE by Cox multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Nonuniform device expansion and substantial untreated residual plaque in reference segments were associated with long-term adverse events following BVS implantation. Baseline imaging to identify the appropriate device landing zone and procedural imaging to achieve uniform device expansion if possible (e.g. through post-dilatation) may improve clinical outcomes of BVS implantation. Clinical trial registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01751906 (ABSORB III); NCT01844284 (ABSORB Japan).
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.
Efficacy and Safety of Covered Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents for Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Chenming Hu,Lang Chen,Min Wu,Qianling Ye,Jun Zou,Bin Zhao,Xiang Li,Huaping Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028241237387

IF: 2.6

2024-03-17

Journal of Endovascular Therapy

Abstract:Journal of Endovascular Therapy, Ahead of Print. Purpose:This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety outcome of covered stents (CSs), as compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs), for the treatment of patients with aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD).Materials and methods:A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to August 2023 to identify all studies comparing efficacy and safety outcomes of CSs versus BMSs for treating AIOD. Our outcome was primary patency, secondary patency, technical success, ankle-brachial index (ABI) variation, target lesion revascularization (TLR), limb salvage, complications, and long-term survival. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as relative risks (RR) or hazard ratio with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous outcomes were pooled as weighted mean differences and 95% CI. Model selection was based on the heterogeneity of the included studies.Results:There were 10 studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 8 retrospective cohort studies), comprising 1676 sample size. Compared with BMSs, CSs use was associated with better primary patency of patients with a Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II (TASC) D lesion (RR, 1.15, 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.27, p=0.007), TLR (RR, 0.39, 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.56, p<0.001), technical success (RR, 1.01, 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02, p=0.010), and long-term survival (RR, 1.06, 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.11, p=0.020). There is no difference between CSs and BMSs regarding primary patency of all patients, secondary patency, variation in ABI, limb salvage, and complications.Conclusions:Compared with BMSs, CSs used in AIOD was associated with more favorable primary patency in patients with TASC D lesions, TLR, technical success rates, and patient long-term survival. These results provide evidence of the advantages of using CSs for AIOD treatment. Future studies focusing on long-term variations in ABI, primary patency of different degrees of calcification, vascular segments, and TASC classification are warranted.Clinical ImpactAlthough several studies evaluated the clinical efficacy of CS in the context of AIOD treatment, the significance and consistency of these findings were not determined to date. We found that CS was used in AIOD associated with better technical success rate, long-term patient survival, lower target lesion revascularization, and higher primary patency of patients with a Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II D lesion when compared with BMSs. Our study provides evidence supporting the superiority of CSs over BMSs in the treatment of AIOD, and furnishing clinicians with guidance for treatment decisions.

surgery,peripheral vascular disease
Peripheral Vascular Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Past, Present, and Future

Zheng Gao,Wentao Jiang,Feng Ran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medp.2024.100031

2024-01-01

Abstract:As peripheral vascular disease affects more and more people in the world, interventional treatment of peripheral blood vessels evolves from percutaneous transluminal angioplasty to bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS). At present, the materials of peripheral vascular bioresorbable scaffolds mainly include polymers and metal materials, and have achieved certain clinical application effects. Examples of these BVS are provided, and their advantages and defects are discussed. Poly-L-lactic acid is most commonly used in polymer BVS. There have been some polymer BVS entering clinical research for peripheral blood vessels since the 10s, and have various outcomes. Metal materials for BVS mainly include magnesium alloy, iron alloy, and zinc alloy. The improved magnesium alloy BVS show excellent antiplatelet adhesion ability and can reduce the formation of acute stent thrombosis in clinical research. The iron alloy BVS and zinc alloy BVS also show excellent performance in animal experiments. The drug coating of BVS is expected to be improved. Finally, prospects of future development are highlighted. With the continuous improvement of manufacturing and drug-coating process, their therapeutic effect is expected to continue to improve.
A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents.

Yaling Han,Bo Xu,Guosheng Fu,Xiaozeng Wang,Kai Xu,Chongying Jin,Ling Tao,Lang Li,Yuqing Hou,Xi Su,Quan Fang,Lianglong Chen,Huiliang Liu,Bin Wang,Zuyi Yuan,Chuanyu Gao,Shenghua Zhou,Zhongwei Sun,Yanyan Zhao,Changdong Guan,Gregg W. Stone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2017.09.037

2018-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVES The authors sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the NeoVas bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) compared with metallic drug-eluting stents. BACKGROUND BRS have the potential to improve very late outcomes compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, but some BRS have been associated with increased rates of device thrombosis before complete bioresorption. NeoVas is a new poly-L-lactic acid BRS that elutes sirolimus from a poly-D, L-lactide coating. METHODS Eligible patients with a single de novo native coronary artery lesion with a reference vessel diameter 2.5 to 3.75 mm and a lesion length <= 20 mm were randomized 1: 1 to NeoVas BRS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES). Angiographic follow-up was performed in all patients at 1 year. The primary endpoint was angio-graphic in-segment late loss (LL), and the major secondary endpoint was the rate of angina. Baseline and follow-up optical coherence tomography and fractional flow reserve were performed in a pre-specified subgroup of patients. RESULTS The authors randomized 560 patients at 32 centers to treatment with NeoVas (n = 278) versus CoCr-EES (n = 282). One-year in-segment LL with NeoVas and CoCr-EES were 0.14 +/- 0.36 mm versus 0.11 +/- 0.34 mm (difference 0.03 mm; upper 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval 0.09 mm; p(noninferiority) < 0.0001; p(superiority) = 0.36). Clinical outcomes at 1 year were similar in the 2 groups, as were the rates of recurrent angina (27.9% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.26). Optical coherence tomography at 1 year demonstrated a higher proportion of covered struts (98.7% vs. 96.2%; p < 0.001), less strut malapposition (0% vs. 0.6%; p < 0.001), and a smaller minimal lumen area (4.71 +/- 1.64 vs. 6.00 +/- 2.15 mm(2); p < 0.001) with NeoVas compared with CoCr-EES respectively, with nonsignificant differences in fractional flow reserve (0.89 +/- 0.08 vs. 0.91 +/- 0.06; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS The NeoVas BRS was noninferior to CoCr-EES for the primary endpoint of 1-year angiographic in-segment LL, and resulted in comparable 1-year clinical outcomes, including recurrent angina. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Bioresorbable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Fully Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Patients Undergoing Coronary Stenting

Jens Wiebe,Robert A. Byrne,Christian Bradaric,Constantin Kuna,Thorsten Kessler,Mathieu Pfleiderer,Sebastian Kufner,Erion Xhepa,Petra Hoppmann,Michael Joner,Heribert Schunkert,Karl-Ludwig Laugwitz,Adnan Kastrati,Salvatore Cassese

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13195949

IF: 3.9

2024-10-08

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Background: The performance of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) was inferior to an everolimus-eluting metallic drug-eluting stent (DES) with permanent polymer, mainly due the mechanical features of BRS technology. The performance of BRS as compared to metallic DES with bioresorbable polymers remains unstudied. Methods: This prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial enrolled patients who underwent coronary stenting for de novo coronary lesions. Patients were randomly assigned to bioresorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (BP-EES) or everolimus-eluting BRS. The primary endpoint was percentage diameter stenosis (in-device) at 6- to 8-month angiographic surveillance. The main secondary endpoint was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of cardiac death/target vessel-myocardial infarction/target lesion revascularization assessed after 12 months and 5 years. Results: The trial was prematurely terminated after the enrollment of 117 of 230 patients (BP-EES, n = 60; BRS, n = 57) due to safety issues associated with BRS technology. The primary endpoint of in-device diameter stenosis at angiographic surveillance was 12.5 ± 7.7% with BP-EES versus 19.3 ± 16.5% with BRS (p = 0.01). The DOCE occurred in 5.0% in the BP-EES group versus 12.3% of patients in the BRS group (hazard ratio [HR] 2.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–9.58, p = 0.19) after 12 months and in 11.7% in the BP-EES group versus 26.4% of patients in the BRS group (HR 2.38, 95% CI 0.97–5.84, p = 0.06) after 5 years. Conclusions: BP-EES showed superior mid-term angiographic performance compared with BRS. Clinical event rates did not differ significantly between the groups up to 5 years of follow-up. These results should be interpreted with caution in view of the premature discontinuation of the study.

medicine, general & internal

Compartmentalization and turnover of 131-I-labeled albumin and gamma globulin in horses.

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

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

Tampons: a 1980 dilemma.

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

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

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

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

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

Near-light photometric stereo using circularly placed point light sources

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

Clinical Outcomes Prior to and Following Complete Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Resorption: Five-Year Follow-Up From the ABSORB III Trial.

Impact of postdilatation on performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared with everolimus-eluting stents: A propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter "real-world" registry

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

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

Intravascular ultrasound predictors of long-term outcomes following ABSORB bioresorbable scaffold implantation: A pooled analysis of the ABSORB III and ABSORB Japan trials

Long-term outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffolds

Efficacy and Safety of Covered Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents for Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peripheral Vascular Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Past, Present, and Future

A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents.

A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Bioresorbable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Fully Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Patients Undergoing Coronary Stenting