TCT-422 6 year clinical outcomes after Absorb bioresorbable scaffold implantation in small vessel: The Maasstad Absorb Registry

Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold vs. everolimus‐eluting metallic stent in small vessel disease: A propensity matched analysis of COMPARE II, RAI, and MAASSTAD‐ABSORB studies

“…SVD is a frequently encountered angiographic finding, involving up to 30% of patients treated by PCI . Both the definition of SVD and its optimal treatment remain a matter of debate.…”

“…To further assess the impact of BVS use for SVD in a large, realworld cohort of patients, we performed a propensity score matching analysis comparing patients treated with Absorb BVS and included in two prospective registries (RAI registry and Maasstad-Absorb registry) with control patients treated with second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and enrolled in the COMPARE II trial [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].…”

Current concepts on coronary revascularization using BRS in patients with diabetes and small vessels disease

“…The structural limitations of the current generation of Absorb BVS, like the strut thickness, the larger profile and the reduced deliverability, limit an extensive application of this technology in complex subsets, as that of SV CAD (41). To date, studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of this device in the setting of SV CAD are scant and mainly deriving from registries ( Table 2, [42][43][44][45][46][47][48].…”

“…All rights reserved. J Thorac Dis 2017;9(Suppl 9):S940-S949 jtd.amegroups.com Table 2 Current evidences on Absorb BVS use in SV disease (42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48) Author/study Save Registry, the 12 months DOCE and the definite ST rates in the SV disease group (defined as a RVD <2.75 mm) were respectively 9% and 1.5% (44). As a matter of fact, the authors found a slightly higher occurrence of device failure if compared to studies related to last generation EES, but lower if compared with earlier devices (29,36).…”

“…Notwithstanding, these results were limited by several aspects: their observational nature, the lack of a direct comparison with current CoCr-EES standard stent and the relatively small number of included patients. More recently, the outcomes data of bigger real-world patient populations were presented ( Table 2, [46][47][48]. The sub-study of the Italian RAI registry is the largest one focused on the interplay between BRS, vessel size, and outcome of patients enrolled in a prospective, multicenter registry (46).…”