Medium-Term Bioresorbable Scaffold Outcomes Utilising Data From an Australian Clinical Quality Registry

Background Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) are a novel technology in coronary intervention. However, recent trials demonstrate higher rates of device failure compared to contemporary drug-eluting stents. This study sought to utilise a clinical quality registry to assess the medium-term safety of the Abbott Absorb BRS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA), in an Australian context.Methods A prospective, observational study of 192 BRS percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) compared to 31,773 non-BRS PCIs entered in the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry from 2013 to 2017. The main outcome measure was patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) events comprising all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction (MI), and any revascularisation.Results Bioresorbable scaffolds patients (mean age 61.6 +/- 10.5 years, 79% male) were younger, had less comorbidity, less prior PCI, fewer ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presentations, lower rates of multi-lesion disease and more adjuvant devices compared to non-BRS PCI (all p<0.01). All-cause mortality was 2.1%, myocardial infarction (MI) 2.1%, scaffold thrombosis 3.1% and any revascularisation 14.1% (mean follow-up 27.4 +/- 8.9 months). POCE events occurred in 11.5% at 1 year and 16.9% at 2 years, comparable to pooled-trial data. Multivariate predictors of POCE were >1 scaffold used (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-11.4, p<0.01) and scaffold diameter mm <= 2.5 mm (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.4-7.6, p=0.02). Over 95% guideline adherence was achieved in six of eight patient selection criteria and four of six device deployment criteria.Conclusion In an Australian setting, BRS were used in non-complex patients. Most guidelines for use were adhered to and outcomes were comparable to pooled trial data. Clinical quality registries are effective in assessing novel treatments and technologies when potential safety concerns develop.