exudates and Coronary-Stenosis

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Mirage (Manli Cardiology, Singapore) bioresorbable microfiber sirolimus-eluting scaffold compared with the Absorb (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) bioresorbable vascular scaffold in the treatment of stenotic target lesions located in native coronary arteries, ranging from ≥2.25 to ≤4.0 mm in diameter. Secondary objectives were to establish the medium-term safety, effectiveness, and performance of the Mirage device.. The current generation of bioresorbable scaffolds has several limitations, such as thick square struts with large footprints that preclude their deep embedment into the vessel wall, resulting in protrusion into the lumen with microdisturbance of flow. The Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold is designed to address these concerns.. In this prospective, single-blind trial, 60 patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with a Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold or an Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold. The clinical endpoints were assessed at 30 days and at 6 and 12 months. In-device angiographic late loss at 12 months was quantified. Secondary optical coherence tomographic endpoints were assessed post-scaffold implantation at 6 and 12 months.. Median angiographic post-procedural in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were 2.38 mm (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.06 to 2.62 mm) and 2.55 mm (IQR: 2.26 to 2.71 mm), respectively; the effect size (d) was -0.29. At 12 months, median angiographic in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were not statistically different (1.90 mm [IQR: 1.57 to 2.31 mm] vs. 2.29 mm [IQR: 1.74 to 2.51 mm], d = -0.36). At 12-month follow-up, median in-scaffold late luminal loss with the Mirage and Absorb devices was 0.37 mm (IQR: 0.08 to 0.72 mm) and 0.23 mm (IQR: 0.15 to 0.37 mm), respectively (d = 0.20). On optical coherence tomography, post-procedural diameter stenosis with the Mirage was 11.2 ± 7.1%, which increased to 27.4 ± 12.4% at 6 months and remained stable (31.8 ± 12.9%) at 1 year, whereas the post-procedural optical coherence tomographic diameter stenosis with the Absorb was 8.4 ± 6.6%, which increased to 16.6 ± 8.9% and remained stable (21.2 ± 9.9%) at 1-year follow-up (Mirage vs. Absorb: d. At 12 months, angiographic in-scaffold late loss was not statistically different between the Mirage and Absorb devices, although diameter stenosis on angiography and on optical coherence tomography was significantly higher with the Mirage than with the Absorb. The technique of implantation was suboptimal for both devices, and future trials should incorporate optical coherence tomographic guidance to allow optimal implantation and appropriate assessment of the new technology, considering the novel mechanical properties of the Mirage.

Topics: Absorbable Implants; Cardiovascular Agents; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Restenosis; Coronary Stenosis; Coronary Vessels; Female; Humans; Indonesia; Malaysia; Male; Middle Aged; Multimodal Imaging; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Predictive Value of Tests; Prospective Studies; Prosthesis Design; Risk Factors; Single-Blind Method; Sirolimus; Time Factors; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Treatment Outcome

Coronary lesions in diabetics (DM) are associated with a high recurrence following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even after drug-eluting stent (DES) deployment. Encouraging clinical data of the drug-eluting balloon catheter (DEB) SeQuent Please warrant its investigation in these patients.. Eighty-four diabetic patients (60.8 ± 9.1 years, 76.2% male) were randomised to either the DEB SeQuent Please or the DES Taxus Liberté to compare the 9-month clinical and angiographic outcome of PCI in native coronary arteries. Comparing the DEB vs. the DES the 9-month results (follow-up DEB 39/45 [86.7%], DES 36/39 [92.3%]) are statistically not different at the 0.05 level for the primary endpoint of in-segment (0.37 ± 0.59 mm vs. 0.35 ± 0.63 mm) and in-stent (0.51 ± 0.61 mm vs. 0.53 ± 0.67 mm) late lumen loss, overall and cardiac deaths (2/45 [4.4%] and 3/45 [6.7%] vs. 0), target lesion revascularisation (3/45 [8.9%] vs. 4/39 [10.3%]), the total MACE rate (6/45 [13.3%] vs. 6/39 [15.4%]), and the event free survival after 10.2 ± 3.8 months (Kaplan-Meier analysis, p<0.80, log rank test).. The clinical and angiographic outcome of the combination of the drug-eluting balloon SeQuent Please with a cobalt chromium stent compared to the drug eluting Taxus stent are similar.

Topics: Aged; Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary; Cardiovascular Agents; Chromium Alloys; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Restenosis; Coronary Stenosis; Diabetes Complications; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Delivery Systems; Drug-Eluting Stents; Equipment Design; Female; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Malaysia; Male; Middle Aged; Paclitaxel; Prospective Studies; Prosthesis Design; Stents; Thailand; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome