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.

METHODS: We recruited 54 abdominally obese subjects to participate in a prospective cross-over design, single-blind trial comparing isocaloric 2000 kcal MUFA or carbohydrate-enriched diet with SFA-enriched diet (control). The control diet consisted of 15E% protein, 53E% carbohydrate and 32E% fat (12E% SFA, 13E% MUFA). A total of ∼7E% of MUFA or refined carbohydrate was exchanged with SFA in the MUFA-rich and carbohydrate-rich diets respectively for 6-weeks. Blood samples were collected at fasting upon trial commencement and at week-5 and 6 of each dietary-intervention phase to measure levels of cytokines (IL-6, IL-1β), C-reactive protein (CRP), thrombogenic markers (E-selectin, PAI-1, D-dimer) and lipid subfractions. Radial pulse wave analysis and a 6-h postprandial mixed meal challenge were carried out at week-6 of each dietary intervention. Blood samples were collected at fasting, 15 and 30 min and hourly intervals thereafter till 6 h after a mixed meal challenge (muffin and milkshake) with SFA or MUFA (872.5 kcal, 50 g fat, 88 g carbohydrates) or CARB (881.3 kcal, 20 g fat, 158 g carbohydrates)- enrichment corresponding to the background diets.