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

Abstract

© 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation Objectives The study compared, by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), acute gain (AG) at the site of the pre-procedural minimal lumen area (MLA) achieved by either the Absorb (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) scaffold or the Xience stent and identified the factors contributing to the acute performance of these devices. Background It is warranted that the acute performance of Absorb matches that of metallic stents; however, concern exists about acute expansion and lumen gain with the use of Absorb. Methods Of a total of 501 patients (546 lesions) in the ABSORB II (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial) randomized trial, 445 patients with 480 lesions were investigated by IVUS pre- and post-procedure. Comparison of MLA pre- and post-procedure was performed at the MLA site by matching pre- and post-procedural IVUS pullbacks. Results Lower AG on IVUS (lowest tertile) occurred more frequently in the Absorb arm than in the Xience arm (3.46 mm2vs. 4.27 mm2, respectively; p < 0.001; risk ratio: 3.04; 95% confidence interval: 1.94 to 4.76). The plaque morphology at the MLA cross-section was not independently associated with IVUS acute gain. The main difference in AG in MLD by angiography was observed at the time of device implantation (Xience vs. Absorb, Δ+1.50 mm vs. Δ+1.23 mm, respectively), whereas the gain from post-dilation was similar between the 2 arms (Δ+0.16 mm vs. Δ+0.16 mm) when patients underwent post-dilation, although expected balloon diameter was smaller in the Absorb arm than in the Xience arm (p = 0.003) during post-dilation. Conclusions At the site of the pre-procedural MLA, the increase of the lumen post-procedure was smaller in the Absorb-arm than in the Xience arm. To achieve equivalent AG to Xience, the implantation of Absorb may require more aggressive strategies at implantation, pre- and post-dilation than the technique used in the ABSORB II trial. (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB II]; NCT01425281)