Advertisement

Implications of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation on vessel wall strain of the treated and the adjacent segments

  • Christos V. Bourantas
  • Hector M. Garcia-Garcia
  • Carlos A. M. Campos
  • Yao-Jun Zhang
  • Takashi Muramatsu
  • Marie-Angèle Morel
  • Shimpei Nakatani
  • Xingyu Gao
  • Yun-Kyeong Cho
  • Yuki Isibashi
  • Frank J. H. Gijsen
  • Yoshinobu Onuma
  • Patrick W. Serruys
Original Paper

Abstract

Background Metallic stents change permanently the mechanical properties of the vessel wall. However little is known about the implications of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) on the vessel wall strain. Methods Patients (n = 53) implanted with an Absorb BVS that had palpographic evaluation at any time point [before device implantation, immediate after treatment, at short-term (6–12 months) or mid-term follow-up (24–36 months)] were included in the current analysis. The palpographic data were used to estimate the mean of the maximum strain values and the obtained measurements were classified using the Rotterdam classification (ROC) score and expressed as ROC/mm. Results Scaffold implantation led to a significant decrease of the vessel wall strain in the treated segment [0.35 (0.20, 0.38) vs. 0.19 (0.09, 0.29); P = 0.005] but it did not affect the proximal and distal edge. In patients who had serial palpographic examination the vessel wall strain continued to decrease in the scaffolded segment at short-term [0.20 (0.12, 0.29) vs. 0.14 (0.08, 0.20); P = 0.048] and mid-term follow-up [0.20 (0.12, 0.29) vs. 0.15 (0.10, 0.19), P = 0.024]. No changes were noted with time in the mechanical properties of the vessel wall at the proximal and distal edge. Conclusions Absorb BVS implantation results in a permanent alteration of the mechanical properties of the vessel wall in the treated segment. Long term follow-up data are needed in order to examine the clinical implications of these findings.

Keywords

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold Palpography Vessel wall strain 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Christos V. Bourantas is funded by the Hellenic Heart Foundation.

Conflict of interest

Xingyu Gao is employee of Abbott Vascular. None of the other authors have any conflict of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

10554_2014_373_MOESM1_ESM.doc (2.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 2553 kb)
10554_2014_373_MOESM2_ESM.doc (602 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 602 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Schaar JA, Regar E, Mastik F et al (2004) Incidence of high-strain patterns in human coronary arteries: assessment with three-dimensional intravascular palpography and correlation with clinical presentation. Circulation 109(22):2716–2719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schaar JA, De Korte CL, Mastik F et al (2003) Characterizing vulnerable plaque features with intravascular elastography. Circulation 108(21):2636–2641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Korte CL, Sierevogel MJ, Mastik F et al (2002) Identification of atherosclerotic plaque components with intravascular ultrasound elastography in vivo: a Yucatan pig study. Circulation 105(14):1627–1630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brugaletta S, Garcia-Garcia HM, Serruys PW et al (2012) Relationship between palpography and virtual histology in patients with acute coronary syndromes. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 5(3Suppl):S19–S27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Serruys PW, Ormiston JA, Onuma Y et al (2009) Abioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (ABSORB): 2-year outcomes and results from multiple imaging methods. Lancet 373(9667):897–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brugaletta S, Gogas BD, Garcia-Garcia HM et al (2012) Vascular compliance changes of the coronary vessel wall after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in the treated and adjacent segments. Circ J 76(7):1616–1623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Mieghem CA, McFadden EP, de Feyter PJ et al (2006) Noninvasive detection of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis coupled with assessment of changes in plaque characteristics using novel invasive imaging modalities: the integrated biomarker and imaging study (IBIS). J Am Coll Cardiol 47(6):1134–1142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Serruys PW, Garcia-Garcia HM, Buszman P et al (2008) Effects of the direct lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) inhibitor darapladib on human coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Circulation 118(11):1172–1182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wykrzykowska JJ, Diletti R, Gutierrez-Chico JL et al (2012) Plaque sealing and passivation with a mechanical self-expanding low outward force nitinol vShield device for the treatment of IVUS and OCT-derived thin cap fibroatheromas (TCFAs) in native coronary arteries: report of the pilot study vShield Evaluated at Cardiac hospital in Rotterdam for Investigation and Treatment of TCFA (SECRITT). EuroIntervention 8(8):945–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Ormiston JA et al (2010) Evaluation of the second generation of a bioresorbable everolimus drug-eluting vascular scaffold for treatment of de novo coronary artery stenosis: six-month clinical and imaging outcomes. Circulation 122(22):2301–2312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schaar JA, van der Steen AF, Mastik F et al (2006) Intravascular palpography for vulnerable plaque assessment. J Am Coll Cardiol 47(8 Suppl):C86–C91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garcia-Garcia HM, Gonzalo N, Pawar R et al (2009) Assessment of the absorption process following bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting stent implantation: temporal changes in strain values and tissue composition using intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency data analysis. A substudy of the ABSORB clinical trial. EuroIntervention 4(4):443–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tanimoto S, Bruining N, van Domburg RT (2008) Late stent recoil of the bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent and its relationship with plaque morphology. J Am Coll Cardiol 52(20):1616–1620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gomez-Lara J, Brugaletta S, Diletti R et al (2011) A comparative assessment by optical coherence tomography of the performance of the first and second generation of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. Eur Heart J 32(3):294–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Dudek D et al (2011) Evaluation of the second generation of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting vascular scaffold for the treatment of de novo coronary artery stenosis: 12-month clinical and imaging outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 58(15):1578–1588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brugaletta S, Radu MD, Garcia-Garcia HM et al (2012) Circumferential evaluation of the neointima by optical coherence tomography after ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: can the scaffold cap the plaque? Atherosclerosis 221(1):106–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Onuma Y, Serruys PW, Perkins LE et al (2010) Intracoronary optical coherence tomography and histology at 1 month and 2, 3, and 4 years after implantation of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in a porcine coronary artery model: an attempt to decipher the human optical coherence tomography images in the ABSORB trial. Circulation 122(22):2288–2300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peng X, Haldar S, Deshpande S et al (2003) Wall stiffness suppresses Akt/eNOS and cytoprotection in pulse-perfused endothelium. Hypertension 41(2):378–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gupta V, Grande-Allen KJ (2006) Effects of static and cyclic loading in regulating extracellular matrix synthesis by cardiovascular cells. Cardiovasc Res 72(3):375–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schad JF, Meltzer KR, Hicks MR et al (2011) Cyclic strain upregulates VEGF and attenuates proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells. Vasc Cell 3:21PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stone GW, Maehara A, Lansky AJ et al (2011) A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 364(3):226–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Serruys PW, Garcia-Garcia HM, Onuma Y (2012) From metallic cages to transient bioresorbable scaffolds: change in paradigm of coronary revascularization in the upcoming decade? Eur Heart J 33(1):16–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bourantas CV, Farooq V, Zhang Y, et al. (2013) Circumferential distribution of the neointima at 6 months and 2 years follow-up after a bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation. A substudy of the ABSORB Cohort B Clinical Trial EuroIntervention (In press)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stone GW (2013) Rationale and design of PROSPECT II. 11 Vulnerable Plaque Meeting, Paris, France, 23–26 June 2013 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Imoto K, Hiro T, Fujii T et al (2005) Longitudinal structural determinants of atherosclerotic plaque vulnerability: a computational analysis of stress distribution using vessel models and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 46(8):1507–1515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kumar RK, Balakrishnan KR (2005) Influence of lumen shape and vessel geometry on plaque stresses: possible role in the increased vulnerability of a remodelled vessel and the “shoulder” of a plaque. Heart 91(11):1459–1465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christos V. Bourantas
    • 1
  • Hector M. Garcia-Garcia
    • 1
  • Carlos A. M. Campos
    • 1
  • Yao-Jun Zhang
    • 1
  • Takashi Muramatsu
    • 1
  • Marie-Angèle Morel
    • 1
  • Shimpei Nakatani
    • 1
  • Xingyu Gao
    • 2
  • Yun-Kyeong Cho
    • 1
  • Yuki Isibashi
    • 1
  • Frank J. H. Gijsen
    • 1
  • Yoshinobu Onuma
    • 1
  • Patrick W. Serruys
    • 1
  1. 1.Interventional Cardiology Department, ThoraxcenterErasmus Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Abbott VascularSanta ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations