Imaging-guided pre-dilatation, stenting, post-dilatation: a protocolized approach highlighting the importance of intravascular imaging for implantation of bioresorbable scaffolds

References

• Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation. 2012;125(23):2873–2891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navarese EP, Kowalewski M, Kandzari D, et al. First-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in current clinical practice: updated evidence from a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comprising 31 379 patients. Open Heart. 2014;1(1):e000064.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yamaji K, Raber L, Zanchin T, et al. Ten-year clinical outcomes of first-generation drug-eluting stents: the sirolimus-eluting vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization (SIRTAX) VERY LATE trial. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(45):3386–3395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gada H, Kirtane AJ, Newman W, et al. 5-year results of a randomized comparison of XIENCE V everolimus-eluting and TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stents: final results from the SPIRIT III trial (clinical evaluation of the XIENCE V everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(12):1263–1266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaji K, Kimura T, Morimoto T, et al. Very long-term (15 to 20 years) clinical and angiographic outcome after coronary bare metal stent implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(5):468–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali ZA, Gao RF, Kimura T, et al. Three-year outcomes with the absorb bioresorbable scaffold: individual-patient-data meta-analysis from the ABSORB randomized trials. Circulation. 2017;137(5):464-479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali ZA, Serruys PW, Kimura T, et al. 2-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy. Lancet (London, England). 2017;390(10096):760–772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Gao R, Kimura T, et al. 1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis. Lancet (London, England). 2016;387(10025):1277–1289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with coronary luminology. The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 1995;92(8):2333–2342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintz GS, Painter JA, Pichard AD, et al. Atherosclerosis in angiographically “normal” coronary artery reference segments: an intravascular ultrasound study with clinical correlations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25(7):1479–1485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glagov S, Weisenberg E, Zarins CK, et al. Compensatory enlargement of human atherosclerotic coronary arteries. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(22):1371–1375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zir LM, Miller SW, Dinsmore RE, et al. Interobserver variability in coronary angiography. Circulation. 1976;53(4):627–632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White CW, Wright CB, Doty DB, et al. Does visual interpretation of the coronary arteriogram predict the physiologic importance of a coronary stenosis? N Engl J Med. 1984;310(13):819–824.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintz GS. Clinical utility of intravascular imaging and physiology in coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(2):207–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prati F, Di Vito L, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide decision-making during percutaneous coronary intervention: the Centro per la Lotta contro l’Infarto-optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention (CLI-OPCI) study. EuroIntervention. 2012;8(7):823–829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin CY, Maehara A, Fall K, et al. Imaging comparisons of coregistered native and stented coronary segments by high-definition 60-MHz intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(12):1305–1306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tearney GJ, Regar E, Akasaka T, et al. Consensus standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular optical coherence tomography studies: a report from the international working group for intravascular optical coherence tomography standardization and validation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(12):1058–1072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangalore S, Bhatt DL. Coronary intravascular ultrasound. Circulation. 2013;127(25):e868–e874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karimi Galougahi K, Shlofmitz RA, Ben-Yehuda O, et al. Guiding light: insights into atherectomy by optical coherence tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(22):2362–2363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sotomi Y, Onuma Y, Collet C, et al. Bioresorbable scaffold: the emerging reality and future directions. Circ Res. 2017;120(8):1341–1352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli F, Cannavale A, Gazzetti M, et al. Calcium burden assessment and impact on drug-eluting balloons in peripheral arterial disease. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37(4):898–907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaji K, Raber L, Windecker S. What determines long-term outcomes using fully bioresorbable scaffolds - the device, the operator or the lesion? EuroIntervention. 2017;12(14):1684–1687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawamoto H, Ruparelia N, Latib A, et al. Expansion in calcific lesions and overall clinical outcomes following bioresorbable scaffold implantation optimized with intravascular ultrasound. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv: Official J Soc Cardiac Ang Int. 2017;89(5):789–797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suwannasom P, Sotomi Y, Ishibashi Y, et al. The impact of post-procedural asymmetry, expansion, and eccentricity of bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold and metallic everolimus-eluting stent on clinical outcomes in the ABSORB II trial. JACC. Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(12):1231–1242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintz GS, Popma JJ, Pichard AD, et al. Patterns of calcification in coronary artery disease. A statistical analysis of intravascular ultrasound and coronary angiography in 1155 lesions. Circulation. 1995;91(7):1959–1965.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X, Matsumura M, Mintz GS, et al. In vivo calcium detection by comparing optical coherence tomography, intravascular ultrasound, and angiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(8):869–879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okabe T, Mintz GS, Buch AN, et al. Intravascular ultrasound parameters associated with stent thrombosis after drug-eluting stent deployment. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100(4):615–620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujii K, Carlier SG, Mintz GS, et al. Stent underexpansion and residual reference segment stenosis are related to stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: an intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(7):995–998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu X, Doi H, Maehara A, et al. A volumetric intravascular ultrasound comparison of early drug-eluting stent thrombosis versus restenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(5):428–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi SY, Witzenbichler B, Maehara A, et al. Intravascular ultrasound findings of early stent thrombosis after primary percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction: a harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) substudy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(3):239–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang SJ, Cho YR, Park GM, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors for edge restenosis after newer generation drug-eluting stent implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(10):1408–1414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobayashi N, Mintz GS, Witzenbichler B, et al. Prevalence, features, and prognostic importance of edge dissection after drug-eluting stent implantation: an ADAPT-DES intravascular ultrasound substudy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(7):e003553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvert PA, Brown AJ, Hoole SP, et al. Geographical miss is associated with vulnerable plaque and increased major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88(3):340–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamburino C, Latib A, van Geuns RJ, et al. Contemporary practice and technical aspects in coronary intervention with bioresorbable scaffolds: a European perspective. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(1):45–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali ZA, Maehara A, Genereux P, et al. Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England). 2016;388(10060):2618–2628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega-Paz L, Capodanno D, Giacchi G, et al. Impact of overlapping on 1-year clinical outcomes in patients undergoing everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds implantation in routine clinical practice: insights from the European multicenter GHOST-EU registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv: Official J Soc Cardiac Ang Int. 2017;89(5):812–818.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panoulas VF, Kawamoto H, Sato K, et al. Clinical outcomes after implantation of overlapping bioresorbable scaffolds vs new generation everolimus eluting stents. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2016;69(12):1135–1143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 (London, England). 2015;385(9962):43–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chieffo A, Latib A, Caussin C, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of intravascular-ultrasound guided compared to angiography guided stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: the AVIO trial. Am Heart J. 2013;165(1):65–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wijns W, Shite J, Jones MR, et al. Optical coherence tomography imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention impacts physician decision-making: ILUMIEN I study. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(47):3346–3355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habara M, Nasu K, Terashima M, et al. Impact of frequency-domain optical coherence tomography guidance for optimal coronary stent implantation in comparison with intravascular ultrasound guidance. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(2):193–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubo T, Shinke T, Okamura T, et al. Optical frequency domain imaging vs. intravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary intervention (OPINION trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. J Cardiol. 2016;68(5):455–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubo T, Akasaka T, Shite J, et al. OCT compared with IVUS in a coronary lesion assessment: the OPUS-CLASS study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(10):1095–1104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maehara A, Ben-Yehuda O, Ali Z, et al. Comparison of stent expansion guided by optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound: the ILUMIEN II study (observational study of optical coherence tomography [OCT] in patients undergoing fractional flow reserve [FFR] and percutaneous coronary intervention). JACC. Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(13):1704–1714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormiston JA, De Vroey F, Serruys PW, et al. Bioresorbable polymeric vascular scaffolds: a cautionary tale. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(5):535–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onuma Y, Serruys PW, Muramatsu T, et al. Incidence and imaging outcomes of acute scaffold disruption and late structural discontinuity after implantation of the absorb everolimus-eluting fully bioresorbable vascular scaffold: optical coherence tomography assessment in the ABSORB cohort B trial (A clinical evaluation of the bioabsorbable everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(12):1400–1411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sotomi Y, Ishibashi Y, Suwannasom P, et al. Acute gain in minimal lumen area following implantation of everolimus-eluting ABSORB biodegradable vascular scaffolds or xience metallic stents: intravascular ultrasound assessment from the ABSORB II trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(12):1216–1227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felix CM, Fam JM, Diletti R, et al. Mid- to long-term clinical outcomes of patients treated with the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: the BVS expand registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(16):1652–1663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sotomi Y, Suwannasom P, Serruys PW, et al. Possible mechanical causes of scaffold thrombosis: insights from case reports with intracoronary imaging. EuroIntervention. 2017;12(14):1747–1756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits P, Abizaid A. TCT-16 do overlapping scaffolds have an impact on clinical outcome? Analysis of the ABSORB-EXTEND single arm study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(15S):B7.
   Google Scholar
• Ishibashi Y, Muramatsu T, Nakatani S, et al. Incidence and potential mechanism(s) of post-procedural rise of cardiac biomarker in patients with coronary artery narrowing after implantation of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold or everolimus-eluting metallic stent. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(8):1053–1063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Abizaid A, Onuma Y, et al. Effect of technique on outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: analysis from the absorb trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(23):2863–2874.
   Google Scholar
• Moscarella E, Ielasi A, Varricchio A, et al. Clinical findings after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in an unrestricted cohort of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the RAI registry). Int J Cardiol. 2018;258:50–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moscarella E, Tanaka A, Ielasi A, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting stents or drug eluting balloon for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: 1-year follow-up of a propensity score matching comparison (the BIORESOLVE-ISR study). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv: Official J Soc Cardiac Ang Int. 2018. [Epub ahead of print].
   Google Scholar
• Puricel S, Cuculi F, Weissner M, et al. Bioresorbable coronary scaffold thrombosis: multicenter comprehensive analysis of clinical presentation, mechanisms, and predictors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(8):921–931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamie D, Garcia-Garcia H, Costa RA, et al. Role of invasive imaging in acute and long-term assessment of bioresorbable scaffold technology. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv: Official J Soc Cardiac Ang Int. 2016;88(S1):38–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jaegere P, Mudra H, Figulla H, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided optimized stent deployment. Immediate and 6 months clinical and angiographic results from the multicenter ultrasound stenting in coronaries study (MUSIC study). Eur Heart J. 1998;19(8):1214–1223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo RJ, Silva PD, Teirstein PS, et al. A randomized controlled trial of angiography versus intravascular ultrasound-directed bare-metal coronary stent placement (the AVID trial). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(2):113–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim C, Kim BK, Lee SY, et al. Incidence, clinical presentation, and predictors of early neoatherosclerosis after drug-eluting stent implantation. Am Heart J. 2015;170(3):591–597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintz GS. Why are we so concerned with acute incomplete stent apposition? Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16(1):110–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foin N, Torii R, Mattesini A, et al. Biodegradable vascular scaffold: is optimal expansion the key to minimising flow disturbances and risk of adverse events? EuroIntervention. 2015;10(10):1139–1142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel A, Nazif T, Stone GW, et al. Intraluminal bioresorbable vascular scaffold dismantling with aneurysm formation leading to very late thrombosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv: Official J Soc Cardiac Ang Int. 2017;89(5):876–879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sotomi Y, Onuma Y, Dijkstra J, et al. Impact of implantation technique and plaque morphology on strut embedment and scaffold expansion of polylactide bioresorbable scaffold- insights from ABSORB Japan trial. Circ J: Official J Jpn Circ Soc. 2016;80(11):2317–2326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sotomi Y, Tateishi H, Suwannasom P, et al. Quantitative assessment of the stent/scaffold strut embedment analysis by optical coherence tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;32(6):871–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sotomi Y, Onuma Y, Dijkstra J, et al. Fate of post-procedural malapposition of everolimus-eluting polymeric bioresorbable scaffold and everolimus-eluting cobalt chromium metallic stent in human coronary arteries: sequential assessment with optical coherence tomography in ABSORB Japan trial. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;19(1):59–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prati F, Romagnoli E, Burzotta F, et al. Clinical impact of OCT findings during PCI: the CLI-OPCI II study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(11):1297–1305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soeda T, Uemura S, Park SJ, et al. Incidence and clinical significance of poststent optical coherence tomography findings: one-year follow-up study from a multicenter registry. Circulation. 2015;132(11):1020–1029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onuma Y, Sotomi Y, Shiomi H, et al. Two-year clinical, angiographic, and serial optical coherence tomographic follow-up after implantation of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and an everolimus-eluting metallic stent: insights from the randomised ABSORB Japan trial. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(9):1090–1101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaji K, Ueki Y, Souteyrand G, et al. Mechanisms of very late bioresorbable scaffold thrombosis: the INVEST registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(19):2330–2344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otsuka F, Pacheco E, Perkins LE, et al. Long-term safety of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the cobalt-chromium XIENCE V stent in a porcine coronary artery model. Circulation Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(3):330–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenekecioglu E, Poon EK, Collet C, et al. The nidus for possible thrombus formation: insight from the microenvironment of bioresorbable vascular scaffold. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(20):2167–2168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden EP, Stabile E, Regar E, et al. Late thrombosis in drug-eluting coronary stents after discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. Lancet (London, England). 2004;364(9444):1519–1521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmerini T, Benedetto U, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. Long-term safety of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(23):2496–2507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windecker S, Stortecky S, Stefanini GG, et al. Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.). 2014;348:g3859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar