Appropriate use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions: A recommendation from experienced users: A position statement on the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in the Netherlands

Netherlands Heart Journal

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 161-165

  Everaert, Bert ^a   Felix, Cordula ^a   Koolen, Jacques ^b   Den Heijer, Peter ^c   Henriques, Jose ^d   Wykrzykowska, Joanna ^d   Van Der Schaaf, Rene ^e   De Smet, Bart ^f   Hofma, Sjoerd ^g   Diletti, Roberto ^a   Van Mieghem, Nicolas ^a   Regar, Evelyn ^a   Smits, Peter ^h   Van Geuns, Robert Jan M ^a  

^a GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY   (United States)

^b CATHARINA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^c AMPHIA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^d ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e ONZE LIEVE VROUWE GASTHUIS   (Netherlands)

^f MEANDER MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^g MEDICAL CENTER LEEUWARDEN   (Netherlands)

^h Maasstad Hospital   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

ABSORB BVS; Bioresorbable; Consensus; Coronary artery disease; PCI; Recommendations

Indexed keywords

PRASUGREL; TICAGRELOR;

ANTICOAGULANT THERAPY; ARTERY LESION; BIORESORBABLE SCAFFOLD; BODY MASS; CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISEASE; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DEVICE SAFETY; DIALYSIS; DRUG ELUTING STENT; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE EJECTION FRACTION; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; IN-STENT RESTENOSIS; ISCHEMIA; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PERIPHERAL OCCLUSIVE ARTERY DISEASE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SEVERE RENAL IMPAIRMENT; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; STENT THROMBOSIS;

EID: 84933510287     PISSN: 15685888     EISSN: 18766250     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12471-015-0651-3     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Deb S, Wijeysundera HC, Ko DT, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery vs percutaneous interventions in coronary revascularization: a systematic review. JAMA. 2013;310:2086-95.
2. Stone GW, Moses JW, Ellis SG, et al. Safety and efficacy of sirolimus-and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:998-1008.
3. Simsek C, Magro M, Boersma E, et al. The unrestricted use of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents results in better clinical outcomes during 6-year follow-up than bare-metal stents: an analysis of the RESEARCH (Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital) and T-SEARCH (Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital) registries. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:1051-8.
4. Felix C, Everaert B, Diletti R, et al. Current status of clinically available bioresorbable scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions. Neth Heart J. 2015. doi:10.1007/s12471-015-0652-2.
5. NVVC. Introductie nieuwe technieken in de klinische praktijk. NVVC/NVT. 2011. https://www.nvvc.nl/media/files/03_Introductie_nieuwe_interventietechnieken_in_de_klinische_praktijk.pdf.
6. Zorginstitituut Nederland. http://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/kwaliteit/projecten/leidraad+innovaties.
7. Leening MJ, Siregar S, Vaartjes I, et al. Heart disease in the Netherlands: a quantitative update. Neth Heart J. 2014;22:3-10.
8. Soekhlal RR, Burgers LT, Redekop WK, Tan SS. Treatment costs of acute myocardial infarction in the Netherlands. Neth Heart J. 2013;21:230-5.
9. Onuma Y, Dudek D, Thuesen L, et al. Five-year clinical and functional multislice computed tomography angiographic results after coronary implantation of the fully resorbable polymeric everolimus-eluting scaffold in patients with de novo coronary artery disease: the ABSORB cohort A trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:999-1009.
10. Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Dynamics of vessel wall changes following the implantation of the absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a multi-imaging modality study at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. EuroIntervention. 2014;9:1271-84.
11. Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Dudek D, et al. A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): an interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61455-0.
12. Kimura T, Morimoto T, Nakagawa Y, et al. Very late stent thrombosis and late target lesion revascularization after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: five-year outcome of the j-Cypher Registry. Circulation. 2012;125:584-91.
13. Wu C, Camacho FT, King SB 3rd, et al. Risk stratification for long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:80-7.
14. Allahwala UK, Cockburn JA, Shaw E, et al. Clinical utility of optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the optimisation of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold deployment during percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention. 2014. [Epub ahead of print].
15. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2001-15.
16. Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1045-57.
17. Colombo A, Chieffo A, Frasheri A, et al. Second generation drug eluting stent implantation followed by six versus twelve month dual antiplatelet therapy: the SECURITY randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:2086-97.