CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Long-term survival and causes of death in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome without obstructive coronary artery disease 4-Step Protocol for Disparities in STEMI Care and Outcomes in Women Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial How Will the Transition to hs-cTn Affect the Diagnosis of Type 1 and 2 MI? Sex differences in discharge destination following acute myocardial infarction Impact of the US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Sex-Specific Cutoff Values for High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T to Diagnose Myocardial Infarction 5-Year Prognostic Value of Quantitative Versus Visual MPI in Subtle Perfusion Defects: Results From REFINE SPECT Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock

Clinical Trial2018 Aug 16.

JOURNAL:Cardiovasc Revasc Med. Article Link

A randomised trial comparing two stent sizing strategies in coronary bifurcation treatment with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds - The Absorb Bifurcation Coronary (ABC) trial

Rampat R, Mayo T, Hildick-Smith D et al. Keywords: Absorb; BVS; Bioresorbable vascular scaffold; Coronary bifurcation

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Limited information is available on the use of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (BVS) in bifurcations involving significant side branches. When treating bifurcation disease with metal stents, the recommendation is to choose a stent diameter based on the distal main vessel diameter. Whether this sizing strategy is applicable to BVS is currently unknown.


METHODS - We randomised 37 patients undergoing elective PCI for 'false' bifurcation disease (Medina 0,1,0; 1,0,0; 1,1,0) to receive BVS based either on proximal or distal reference diameters. Optical Frequency Domain Imaging (OFDI) measurements were performed pre BVS insertion to obtain proximal and distal reference diameters and post implantation. BVS size was chosen according to the proximal or distal reference diameter as per randomisation. Implantation was performed using the PSP technique tailored to bifurcation stenting. OFDI was repeated post implantation to confirm satisfactory expansion and apposition.

RESULTS - Baseline demographics between the two groups were similar. Patients were aged 62.8 ± 3.3 years; 76% were male. Mean side branch diameter was 2.24 ± 0.13 mm. TIMI III flow in the main vessel was achieved in all cases. Side branch occlusion occurred in 1 case (2.7%). In the distal-sizing arm, there was a greater incidence of significant malapposition (>300 μm) at the proximal end of the scaffold on OCT (2.3% versus 0.8%, p 0.023). The incidence of distal edge dissections was numerically greater in the proximal-sizing group but this was not statistically significant (31.3% vs 11.8%, p 0.17).

CONCLUSION - Both proximal and distal sizing strategies have similar procedural complication rates when using the ABSORB BVS to treat coronary bifurcations. However a proximal sizing strategy is associated with less malapposition and may be preferable.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.