TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of implantation technique on outcomes in patients receiving bioresorbable scaffolds in various clinical scenarios
AU - Ortega-Paz, Luis
AU - Brugaletta, Salvatore
AU - Capodanno, Davide
AU - Gomez-Hospital, Joan A.
AU - Iniguez, Andres
AU - Gori, Tommaso
AU - Urbano, Cristobal
AU - Nef, Holger
AU - Trillo, Ramiro
AU - Latib, Azeem
AU - Benedicto, Amparo
AU - Caramanno, Giuseppe
AU - de Prado, Armando Perez
AU - Di Mario, Carlo
AU - Naber, Christoph
AU - Salinas, Pablo
AU - Sanchis, Juan
AU - Mehilli, Julinda
AU - Pinon, Pablo
AU - Martins, Dinis
AU - Avanzas, Pablo
AU - Lopez-Minguez, Jose R.
AU - Martins, Cristina
AU - Santos, Ricardo
AU - Torres, Alfonso
AU - Lozano, Inigo
AU - Moreno, Raul
AU - Sabate, Manel
AU - Hernandez, Felipe
N1 - Funding Information:
was funded by the Spanish Society of
Publisher Copyright:
© REC: Interventional Cardiology 2019.
PY - 2019/7
Y1 - 2019/7
N2 - Introduction and objectives: The PSP (pre-dilation, sizing and post-dilation) score, derived from the GHOST-EU registry, has evaluated the relationship between the implantation technique of bioresorbable scaffolds and the clinical outcomes. The objective was to perform an external validation of the PSP technique and to determine its effect on adverse cardiac events in various clinical and anatomical scenarios. Methods: Data from the REPARA registry (2230 patients) were used for external validation, whereas a common database combining REPARA and GHOST-EU (3250 patients) data was used to evaluate the effect of PSP technique in various clinical and anatomical scenarios. PSP-1 and PSP-3 were used to score the appropriateness of pre-dilation, scaffold sizing, and post-dilation. The primary endpoint was 1-year device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target-lesion revascularization. The definite/probable scaffold thrombosis according to the Academic Research Consortium criteria was also evaluated. Results: A total of 303 (18.2%) patients were treated with an optimal PSP-1, and 182 (8.2%) with an optimal PSP-3. The external validation showed that PSP has a very high negative predictive value for device-oriented composite endpoint and scaffold thrombosis (91.8% and 89.1% for PSP-1; 98.4% and 97.3% for PSP-3, respectively). Patients with an optimal PSP-3 had a numerically lower rate of device-oriented composite endpoint and scaffold thrombosis compared to those without it (0.5% vs 2.9%; P = .085 and 0.5% vs 1.8%; P = .248, respectively). In the merged database, PSP benefits were seen on many scenarios, except in the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction where a trend towards no benefit of an optimal PSP technique was present (Pinteraction = .100). Conclusions: In the REPARA registry, at 1-year follow-up, an optimal PSP technique was not associated with a lower rate of device-oriented composite endpoint. Further research is necessary to assess the impact of the PSP technique in longer follow-ups.
AB - Introduction and objectives: The PSP (pre-dilation, sizing and post-dilation) score, derived from the GHOST-EU registry, has evaluated the relationship between the implantation technique of bioresorbable scaffolds and the clinical outcomes. The objective was to perform an external validation of the PSP technique and to determine its effect on adverse cardiac events in various clinical and anatomical scenarios. Methods: Data from the REPARA registry (2230 patients) were used for external validation, whereas a common database combining REPARA and GHOST-EU (3250 patients) data was used to evaluate the effect of PSP technique in various clinical and anatomical scenarios. PSP-1 and PSP-3 were used to score the appropriateness of pre-dilation, scaffold sizing, and post-dilation. The primary endpoint was 1-year device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target-lesion revascularization. The definite/probable scaffold thrombosis according to the Academic Research Consortium criteria was also evaluated. Results: A total of 303 (18.2%) patients were treated with an optimal PSP-1, and 182 (8.2%) with an optimal PSP-3. The external validation showed that PSP has a very high negative predictive value for device-oriented composite endpoint and scaffold thrombosis (91.8% and 89.1% for PSP-1; 98.4% and 97.3% for PSP-3, respectively). Patients with an optimal PSP-3 had a numerically lower rate of device-oriented composite endpoint and scaffold thrombosis compared to those without it (0.5% vs 2.9%; P = .085 and 0.5% vs 1.8%; P = .248, respectively). In the merged database, PSP benefits were seen on many scenarios, except in the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction where a trend towards no benefit of an optimal PSP technique was present (Pinteraction = .100). Conclusions: In the REPARA registry, at 1-year follow-up, an optimal PSP technique was not associated with a lower rate of device-oriented composite endpoint. Further research is necessary to assess the impact of the PSP technique in longer follow-ups.
KW - Bioresorbable scaffolds
KW - Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds
KW - Coronary artery disease
KW - Percutaneous coronary intervention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112856583&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85112856583&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.24875/RECICE.M19000030
DO - 10.24875/RECICE.M19000030
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85112856583
SN - 2604-7306
VL - 1
SP - 83
EP - 91
JO - REC: Interventional Cardiology
JF - REC: Interventional Cardiology
IS - 2
ER -