BACKGROUND: The current generation of bioresorbable scaffolds has several limitations, such as thick square struts with large footprints that preclude their deep embedment into the vessel wall, resulting in protrusion into the lumen with microdisturbance of flow. The Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold is designed to address these concerns.

METHODS: In this prospective, single-blind trial, 60 patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with a Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold or an Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold. The clinical endpoints were assessed at 30 days and at 6 and 12 months. In-device angiographic late loss at 12 months was quantified. Secondary optical coherence tomographic endpoints were assessed post-scaffold implantation at 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS: Median angiographic post-procedural in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were 2.38 mm (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.06 to 2.62 mm) and 2.55 mm (IQR: 2.26 to 2.71 mm), respectively; the effect size (d) was -0.29. At 12 months, median angiographic in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were not statistically different (1.90 mm [IQR: 1.57 to 2.31 mm] vs. 2.29 mm [IQR: 1.74 to 2.51 mm], d = -0.36). At 12-month follow-up, median in-scaffold late luminal loss with the Mirage and Absorb devices was 0.37 mm (IQR: 0.08 to 0.72 mm) and 0.23 mm (IQR: 0.15 to 0.37 mm), respectively (d = 0.20). On optical coherence tomography, post-procedural diameter stenosis with the Mirage was 11.2 ± 7.1%, which increased to 27.4 ± 12.4% at 6 months and remained stable (31.8 ± 12.9%) at 1 year, whereas the post-procedural optical coherence tomographic diameter stenosis with the Absorb was 8.4 ± 6.6%, which increased to 16.6 ± 8.9% and remained stable (21.2 ± 9.9%) at 1-year follow-up (Mirage vs. Absorb: dpost-procedure = 0.41, d6 months = 1.00, d12 months = 0.92). Angiographic median in-scaffold diameter stenosis was significantly different between study groups at 12 months (28.6% [IQR: 21.0% to 40.7%] for the Mirage, 18.2% [IQR: 13.1% to 31.6%] for the Absorb, d = 0.39). Device- and patient-oriented composite endpoints were comparable between the 2 study groups.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains challenging. PCBs are an established treatment option outside the United States with a Class I, Level of Evidence: A recommendation in the European guidelines. However, their efficacy is better in bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR compared with drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR.

METHODS: Fifty patients with DES ISR were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter trial to compare a novel SCB (SeQuent SCB, 4 μg/mm2) with a clinically proven PCB (SeQuent Please Neo, 3 μg/mm2) in coronary DES ISR. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included procedural success, major adverse cardiovascular events, and individual clinical endpoints such as stent thrombosis, cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and binary restenosis.

RESULTS: Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. After 6 months, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.21 ± 0.54 mm in the PCB group versus 0.17 ± 0.55 mm in the SCB group (p = NS; per-protocol analysis). Clinical events up to 12 months also did not differ between the groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty discs each of Fuji LX, Fuji VII and of Vitrebond were prepared in a plastic mould. Twenty discs of each material were coated for 30 seconds with a 10% solution of AgF. Five discs each of coated and uncoated material were placed individually in 4m1 of differing eluant solutions. The eluant solutions comprised deionized distilled water (DDW) and three separate acetate buffered solutions at pH 7, pH 5 and pH 3. After 30 minutes the discs were removed and placed in five vials containing 4m1 of the various solutions for a further 30 minutes. This was repeated for further intervals of time up to 216 hours, and all eluant solutions were stored. Fluoride concentrations in the eluant solutions were estimated using a fluoride specific electrode, with TISAB IV as a metal ion complexing and ionic concentration adjustment agent. Cumulative fluoride release patterns were determined from the incremental data.

RESULTS: The coating of AgF greatly enhanced the level of fluoride ion release from all materials tested. Of the uncoated samples, Vitrehond released the greater concentrations of fluoride ion, followed by Fuji VII. However, cumulative levels of fluoride released from coated samples of the GICs almost matched those from coated Vitrebond.