METHODS AND RESULTS: A detailed questionnaire was distributed to 28 highly-experienced interventional cardiologists ('Authors') from 13 Asia-Pacific countries. The results were discussed at a meeting on patient selection, technical consideration, deployment practices and patient management. Potential patient benefits of Absorb compared to metallic DES, the learning curve for patient selection and preparation, device deployment, and subsequent patient management approaches are presented.
CONCLUSIONS: Current practices are derived from guidelines optimized for European patients. Differences in approach exist in the Asia-Pacific context, including limited access to imaging and frequency of occurrence of complex lesions. Nevertheless, the use of the Absorb BVS ('Absorb') in certain Asia-Pacific countries has flourished and practices here are continuing to mature.
BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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: dpost-procedure = 0.41, d6 months = 1.00, d12 months = 0.92). Angiographic median in-scaffold diameter stenosis was significantly different between study groups at 12 months (28.6% [IQR: 21.0% to 40.7%] for the Mirage, 18.2% [IQR: 13.1% to 31.6%] for the Absorb, d = 0.39). Device- and patient-oriented composite endpoints were comparable between the 2 study groups.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.