Publication

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

Everaert, B., Wykrzykowska, J. J., Koolen, J., van der Harst, P., den Heijer, P., Henriques, J. P., van der Schaaf, R., de Smet, B., Hofma, S. H., Diletti, R., Weevers, A., Hoorntje, J., Smits, P. & van Geuns, R. J., Jul-2017, In : Netherlands Heart Journal. 25, 7-8, p. 419-428 10 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Copy link to clipboard

Documents

DOI

  • B. Everaert
  • J. J. Wykrzykowska
  • J. Koolen
  • P. van der Harst
  • P. den Heijer
  • J. P. Henriques
  • R. van der Schaaf
  • B. de Smet
  • S. H. Hofma
  • R. Diletti
  • A. Weevers
  • J. Hoorntje
  • P. Smits
  • R. J. van Geuns

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 implantation 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 individualised 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)419-428
Number of pages10
JournalNetherlands Heart Journal
Volume25
Issue number7-8
Publication statusPublished - Jul-2017

    Keywords

  • Bioresorbable vascular scaffold, Percutaneous coronary intervention, Absorb BVS, DUAL ANTIPLATELET THERAPY, GHOST-EU REGISTRY, ELUTING STENT IMPLANTATION, ARTERY-DISEASE, MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION, CLINICAL-OUTCOMES, 1-YEAR OUTCOMES, METALLIC STENTS, FOLLOW-UP, EVEROLIMUS

Download statistics

No data available

ID: 48407020