Long-Term Outcomes After Implantation of Magnesium-Based Bioresorbable Scaffolds-Insights From an All-Comer Registry

Matthias Bossard, Mehdi Madanchi, Dardan Avdijaj, Adrian Attinger-Toller, Giacomo Maria Cioffi, Thomas Seiler, Gregorio Tersalvi, Richard Kobza, Guido Schüpfer, Florim Cuculi, Matthias Bossard, Mehdi Madanchi, Dardan Avdijaj, Adrian Attinger-Toller, Giacomo Maria Cioffi, Thomas Seiler, Gregorio Tersalvi, Richard Kobza, Guido Schüpfer, Florim Cuculi

Abstract

Background: The magnesium-based sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Mg-BRS) Magmaris™ showed promising clinical outcomes, including low rates of both the target lesion failure (TLF) and scaffold thrombosis (ScT), in selected study patients. However, insights regarding long-term outcomes (>2 years) in all-comer populations remain scarce.

Methods: We analyzed data from a single-center registry, including patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using the Mg-BRS. The primary outcome comprised the device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE) representing a hierarchical composite of cardiac death, ScT, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) up to 5 years.

Results: In total, 84 patients [mean age 62 ± 11 years and 63 (75%) men] were treated with the Mg-BRS devices between June 2016 and March 2017. Overall, 101 lesions had successfully been treated with the Mg-BRS devices using 1.2 ± 0.4 devices per lesion. Pre- and postdilatation using dedicated devices had been performed in 101 (100%) and 98 (97%) of all the cases, respectively. After a median follow-up time of 62 (61-64) months, 14 (18%) patients had experienced DoCEs, whereas ScT was encountered in 4 (4.9%) patients [early ScTs (<30 days) in three cases and two fatal cases]. In 4 (29%) of DoCE cases, optical coherence tomography confirmed the Mg-BRS collapse and uncontrolled dismantling.

Conclusion: In contradiction to earlier studies, we encountered a relatively high rate of DoCEs in an all-comer cohort treated with the Mg-BRS. We even observed scaffold collapse and uncontrolled dismantling. This implicates that this metal-based BRS requires further investigation and may only be used in highly selected cases.

Keywords: Magmaris; bioresorbable scaffold (BRS); magnesium; outcome; percutaneous coronary intervention; scaffold thrombosis; stent.

Conflict of interest statement

MB has received speaker and/or consultant fees from Abbott Vascular, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Abiomed, Amgen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mundipharma, and SIS Medical. RK has received institutional grants from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and SIS Medical and serves as a consultant for Biosense Webster and Biotronik. FC has received speaker and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, and SIS Medical. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2022 Bossard, Madanchi, Avdijaj, Attinger-Toller, Cioffi, Seiler, Tersalvi, Kobza, Schüpfer and Cuculi.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The Kaplan–Meier curves for the device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) over time.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Hallmark OCT findings encountered in patients with the Mg-BRS-related target lesion failures: (A) scaffold collapse; (B) uncontrolled device dismantling. (A) This OCT image shows a collapsed scaffold with seemingly “free-floating” struts (arrow), which are no longer embedded and apposed to the coronary artery's wall. Also, the inner lumen appears to have restenosis with significant luminal irregularities and tissue protrusion. (B) This illustrates an incompletely dismantled Mg-BRS with residuals of struts protruding into the vascular lumen (arrow). Also, the intima appears partially irregular (1–5 o'clock). Mg-BRS, magnesium-based sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold; OCT, optical coherence tomography.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Case with TLR 42 days after implantation of the 2 Mg-BRS. Angiographic and OCT results of a case that required TLR. (A) By angiographic measures, a good result was achieved after implantation of the 2 Mg-BRS devices to the left anterior coronary artery; (B) This shows the angiography of the left anterior descending artery 42 days after the scaffold implantation, including serial segments (C,E,F) with significant luminal narrowing [>75% by Quantitative Coronary Angiography (QCA)]; (C,F) These images illustrate device collapse and uncontrolled dismantling associated with excessive tissue formation and significant lumen loss; (D) This segment shows eccentric remodeling of the artery wall after complete degradation of the Mg-BRS; (E) On OCT, the Mg-BRS seems completed degraded in this segment of left anterior descending (LAD). Mg-BRS, magnesium-based sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold; OCT, optical coherence tomography. *: denotes the scaffold and arrow: denotes the vessel lumen.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Case vignette of a patient treated with the 2 Mg-BRS, depicting long-term scaffold persistence and negative vessel remodeling. A 46-year-old patient presented to the emergency department with an acute anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). On the coronary angiogram, a complete occlusion of the mid LAD artery was observed (A). After predilatation with a non-compliant balloon (2.5 mm × 20 mm, 14 atm), the 2 Magmaris BRS (3 mm × 25 mm and 3.5 mm × 25 mm) were successfully implanted (B). The patient presented 4 years later with chest pain during physical activity [chronic coronary syndrome II (CCS II)]. On the coronary angiogram (C), we found an aneurysmatic proximal to mid LAD without relevant stenosis. On OCT (D), scaffold remnants were observed as an expression of incomplete scaffold degradation. *: complete vessel occlusion, arrow: coronary aneurysma, and arrowhead: scaffold remnants.

References

    1. Brar SS, Leon MB, Stone GW, Mehran R, Moses JW, Brar SK, et al. . Use of drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2009) 53:1677–89. 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.03.013
    1. Kaiser C, Galatius S, Jeger R, Gilgen N, Skov Jensen J, Naber C, et al. . Long-term efficacy and safety of biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents: main results of the Basel Stent Kosten-Effektivitats Trial-PROspective Validation Examination II (BASKET-PROVE II), a randomized, controlled noninferiority 2-year outcome trial. Circulation. (2015) 131:74–81. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013520
    1. Pilgrim T, Piccolo R, Heg D, Roffi M, Tuller D, Vuilliomenet A, et al. . Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary revascularisation of acute myocardial infarction. EuroIntervention. (2016) 12:e1343–e54. 10.4244/EIJY15M12_09
    1. Joner M, Finn AV, Farb A, Mont EK, Kolodgie FD, Ladich E, et al. . Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2006) 48:193–202. 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.03.042
    1. Taniwaki M, Radu MD, Zaugg S, Amabile N, Garcia-Garcia HM, Yamaji K, et al. . Mechanisms of very late drug-eluting stent thrombosis assessed by optical coherence tomography. Circulation. (2016) 133:650–60. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.019071
    1. Sabate M, Windecker S, Iniguez A, Okkels-Jensen L, Cequier A, Brugaletta S, et al. . Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial. Eur Heart J. (2016) 37:229–40. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv500
    1. Cassese S, Byrne RA, Ndrepepa G, Kufner S, Wiebe J, Repp J, et al. . Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. (2016) 387:537–44. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00979-4
    1. Wykrzykowska JJ, Kraak RP, Hofma SH, van der Schaaf RJ, Arkenbout EK, IJsselmuiden AJ, et al. . Bioresorbable scaffolds versus metallic stents in routine PCI. N Engl J Med. (2017) 376:2319–28. 10.1056/NEJMoa1614954
    1. Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Sotomi Y, Cequier A, Carrie D, Piek JJ, et al. . Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial. Lancet. (2016) 388:2479–91. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32050-5
    1. Madanchi M, Cioffi GM, Attinger-Toller A, Wolfrum M, Moccetti F, Seiler T, et al. . Long-term outcomes after treatment of in-stent restenosis using the absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold. Open Heart. (2021) 8:1776. 10.1136/openhrt-2021-001776
    1. Haude M, Ince H, Abizaid A, Toelg R, Lemos PA, von Birgelen C, et al. . Safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de-novo coronary artery lesions (BIOSOLVE-II): 6 month results of a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, first-in-man trial. Lancet. (2016) 387:31–9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00447-X
    1. Haude M, Ince H, Abizaid A, Toelg R, Lemos PA, von Birgelen C, et al. . Sustained safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 12-month clinical results and angiographic findings of the BIOSOLVE-II first-in-man trial. Eur Heart J. (2016) 37:2701–9. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw196
    1. Verheye S, Wlodarczak A, Montorsi P, Torzewski J, Bennett J, Haude M, et al. . BIOSOLVE-IV-registry: safety and performance of the Magmaris scaffold: 12-month outcomes of the first cohort of 1,075 patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. (2021) 98:E1–e8. 10.1002/ccd.29260
    1. Włodarczak A, Łanocha M, Lesiak M, Benett J, Szudrowicz M, Jastrzebski A, et al. . Long-term clinical follow-up of the resorbable magnesium scaffolds in acute coronary syndrome patients. Kardiol Pol. (2021) 79:827–32. 10.33963/KP.a2021.0035
    1. Włodarczak A, Łanocha M, Szudrowicz M, Barycki M, Gosiewska A, Kulczycki JJ, et al. . The 1-year safety and efficacy outcomes of magmaris, novel magnesium bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in diabetes mellitus patients with acute coronary syndrome. J Clin Med. (2021) 10:143166. 10.3390/jcm10143166
    1. Schmidt W, Behrens P, Brandt-Wunderlich C, Siewert S, Grabow N, Schmitz KP. In vitro performance investigation of bioresorbable scaffolds - standard tests for vascular stents and beyond. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. (2016) 17:375–83. 10.1016/j.carrev.2016.05.001
    1. Everaert B, Felix C, Koolen J, den Heijer P, Henriques J, Wykrzykowska J, et al. . 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. Neth Heart J. (2015) 23:161–5. 10.1007/s12471-015-0651-3
    1. Tamburino C, Latib A, van Geuns RJ, Sabate M, Mehilli J, Gori T, et al. . Contemporary practice and technical aspects in coronary intervention with bioresorbable scaffolds: a European perspective. EuroIntervention. (2015) 11:45–52. 10.4244/EIJY15M01_05
    1. Ortega-Paz L, Brugaletta S, Sabaté M. Impact of PSP technique on clinical outcomes following bioresorbable scaffolds implantation. J Clin Med. (2018) 7:jcm7020027. 10.3390/jcm7020027
    1. Hideo-Kajita A, Garcia-Garcia HM, Kolm P, Azizi V, Ozaki Y, Dan K, et al. . Comparison of clinical outcomes between Magmaris and Orsiro drug eluting stent at 12 months: pooled patient level analysis from BIOSOLVE II-III and BIOFLOW II trials. Int J Cardiol. (2020) 300:60–5. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.11.003
    1. Abellas-Sequeiros RA, Ocaranza-Sanchez R, Bayon-Lorenzo J, Santas-Alvarez M, Gonzalez-Juanatey C. 12-month clinical outcomes after Magmaris percutaneous coronary intervention in a real-world cohort of patients: results from the CardioHULA registry. Rev Port Cardiol. (2020) 39:421–5. 10.1016/j.repc.2019.09.018
    1. Gutiérrez-Barrios A, Gheorghe LL, Camacho Freire S, Silva E, Gómez Menchero A, Francisco Jose MP, et al. . Long-term clinical, angiographic, and optical coherence tomography findings of Mg-based bioresorbable scaffold in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. (2021) 98:E69–e77. 10.1002/ccd.29557
    1. Tovar Forero MN, van Zandvoort L, Masdjedi K, Diletti R, Wilschut J, de Jaegere PP, et al. . Serial invasive imaging follow-up of the first clinical experience with the Magmaris magnesium bioresorbable scaffold. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. (2020) 95:226–31. 10.1002/ccd.28304
    1. Fajadet J, Haude M, Joner M, Koolen J, Lee M, Tolg R, et al. . Magmaris preliminary recommendation upon commercial launch: a consensus from the expert panel on 14 April 2016. EuroIntervention. (2016) 12:828–33. 10.4244/EIJV12I7A137
    1. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, van Es GA, et al. . Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation. (2007) 115:2344–51. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.685313
    1. Cuculi F, Puricel S, Jamshidi P, Valentin J, Kallinikou Z, Toggweiler S, et al. . Optical coherence tomography findings in bioresorbable vascular scaffolds thrombosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2015) 8:e002518. 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002518
    1. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD, et al. . Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. (2012) 33:2551–67. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs184
    1. Iqbal J, Onuma Y, Ormiston J, Abizaid A, Waksman R, Serruys P. Bioresorbable scaffolds: rationale, current status, challenges, and future. Eur Heart J. (2014) 35:765–76. 10.1093/eurheartj/eht542
    1. Ali ZA, Gao R, Kimura T, Onuma Y, Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, et al. . Three-year outcomes with the absorb bioresorbable scaffold: individual-patient-data meta-analysis from the ABSORB randomized trials. Circulation. (2018) 137:464–79. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.031843
    1. Ruggiero R, Pompei G, Tonet E, Vitali F, Guardigli G, Campo G, et al. . Safety and efficacy of new-generation coronary bioresorbable scaffolds: a systematic review. Minerva Cardiol Angiol. (2021). 10.23736/S2724-5683.21.05658-1
    1. Masiero G, Rodinò G, Matsuda J, Tarantini G. Bioresorbable coronary scaffold technologies: what's new? Cardiol Clin. (2020) 38:589–99. 10.1016/j.ccl.2020.07.004
    1. Torzewski J. Safety and performance of Magmaris at 24 month follow up of BIOSOLVE IV. In: Presented at: eEuroPCR; Virtual Congress. : NCT028178022; (2021).
    1. Iantorno M, Lipinski MJ, Garcia-Garcia HM, Forrestal BJ, Rogers T, Gajanana D, et al. . Meta-analysis of the impact of strut thickness on outcomes in patients with drug-eluting stents in a coronary artery. Am J Cardiol. (2018) 122:1652–60. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.07.040
    1. Forrestal B, Case BC, Yerasi C, Musallam A, Chezar-Azerrad C, Waksman R. Bioresorbable scaffolds: current technology and future perspectives. Rambam Maimonides Med J. (2020) 11:10402. 10.5041/RMMJ.10402
    1. Bangalore S, Bezerra HG, Rizik DG, Armstrong EJ, Samuels B, Naidu SS, et al. . The state of the absorb bioresorbable scaffold: consensus from an expert panel. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2017) 10:2349–59. 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.09.041
    1. Foin N, Lee RD, Torii R, Guitierrez-Chico JL, Mattesini A, Nijjer S, et al. . Impact of stent strut design in metallic stents and biodegradable scaffolds. Int J Cardiol. (2014) 177:800–8. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.09.143
    1. Sakamoto A, Jinnouchi H, Torii S, Virmani R, Finn AV. Understanding the impact of stent and scaffold material and strut design on coronary artery thrombosis from the basic and clinical points of view. Bioengineering. (2018) 5:30071. 10.3390/bioengineering5030071
    1. Katagiri Y, Serruys PW, Asano T, Miyazaki Y, Chichareon P, Modolo R, et al. . How does the failure of Absorb apply to the other bioresorbable scaffolds? An expert review of first-in-man and pivotal trials. EuroIntervention. (2019) 15:116–23. 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00607
    1. Campos CM, Muramatsu T, Iqbal J, Zhang YJ, Onuma Y, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. . Bioresorbable drug-eluting magnesium-alloy scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease. Int J Mol Sci. (2013) 14:24492–500. 10.3390/ijms141224492
    1. Puricel S, Cuculi F, Weissner M, Schmermund A, Jamshidi P, Nyffenegger T, et al. . Bioresorbable coronary scaffold thrombosis: multicenter comprehensive analysis of clinical presentation, mechanisms, and predictors. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2016) 67:921–31. 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.12.019
    1. Raber L, Brugaletta S, Yamaji K, O'Sullivan CJ, Otsuki S, Koppara T, et al. . Very late scaffold thrombosis: intracoronary imaging and histopathological and spectroscopic findings. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2015) 66:1901–14. 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.08.853
    1. Adriaenssens T, Joner M, Godschalk TC, Malik N, Alfonso F, Xhepa E, et al. . Optical coherence tomography findings in patients with coronary stent thrombosis: a report of the PRESTIGE Consortium (Prevention of Late Stent Thrombosis by an Interdisciplinary Global European Effort). Circulation. (2017) 136:1007–21. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.026788
    1. Secco GG, Verdoia M, Pistis G, De Luca G, Vercellino M, Audo A, et al. . Optical coherence tomography guidance during bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation. J Thorac Dis. (2017) 9:S986–S93. 10.21037/jtd.2017.07.111
    1. Cubero-Gallego H, Vandeloo B, Gomez-Lara J, Romaguera R, Roura G, Gomez-Hospital JA, et al. . Early collapse of a magnesium bioresorbable scaffold. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2017) 10:e171–e2. 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.07.037
    1. Barkholt TO, Neghabat O, Terkelsen CJ, Christiansen EH, Holm NR. Restenosis in a collapsed magnesium bioresorbable scaffold. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2017) 10:5677. 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005677
    1. Garcia-Blas S, Minana G, Sanchis J. Optical coherence tomography of magnesium bioresorbable scaffold restenosis. Rev Esp Cardiol. (2017). 10.1016/j.rec.2017.11.016
    1. Yang H, Zhang F, Qian J, Chen J, Ge J. Restenosis in magmaris stents due to significant collapse. JACC Cardiovasc Intervent. (2018) 11:e77–e8. 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.02.040
    1. Ocaranza-Sanchez R, Abellas-Sequeiros RA, Gonzalez-Juanatey C. Magnesium bioresorbable scaffold collapse: a novel restenosis mechanism? Coron Artery Dis. (2021) 32:265–6. 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000922
    1. Gomez-Lara J, Ortega-Paz L, Brugaletta S, Cuesta J, Romaní S, Serra A, et al. . Bioresorbable scaffolds versus permanent sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: vascular healing outcomes from the MAGSTEMI trial. EuroIntervention. (2020) 16:e913–e21. 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00198
    1. Cerrato E, Barbero U, Gil Romero JA, Quadri G, Mejia-Renteria H, Tomassini F, et al. . Magmaris™ resorbable magnesium scaffold: state-of-art review. Future Cardiol. (2019) 15:267–79. 10.2217/fca-2018-0081
    1. Koppara T, Cheng Q, Yahagi K, Mori H, Sanchez OD, Feygin J, et al. . Thrombogenicity and early vascular healing response in metallic biodegradable polymer-based and fully bioabsorbable drug-eluting stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2015) 8:e002427. 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002427
    1. Sabaté M, Alfonso F, Cequier A, Romaní S, Bordes P, Serra A, et al. . Magnesium-based resorbable scaffold versus permanent metallic sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the MAGSTEMI randomized clinical trial. Circulation. (2019) 140:1904–16. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043467
    1. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al. . 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. The Task Force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). G Ital Cardiol. (2019) 20(7-8Suppl.1):1S−61S. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit