Copeptin is the C-terminal end of pre-provasopressin released equimolar to vasopressin into circulation and recently discussed as promising cardiovascular biomarker amendatory to established markers such as troponins. Vasopressin is a cytokine synthesized in the hypothalamus. A direct release of copeptin from the heart into the circulation is implied by data from a rat model showing a cardiac origin in hearts put under cardiovascular wall stress. Therefore, evaluation of a potential release of copeptin from the human heart in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been done.

The 3-year incidence of ScR was similar to that observed in similar settings with newer-generation drug-eluting stents. It is often associated with a benign presentation and a complex angiographic pattern. Predictors of ScR match those of metallic stent restenosis, and the implantation technique used at index appears to play an important role.

BackgroundCoronary bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed to overcome the limitations of standard metallic stents, especially to address late events after percutaneous coronary interventions. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BRS, compared with Everolimus-eluting stents (EES), using the data available from randomized trials, with a focus on long-term outcomes.MethodsPublished randomized trials comparing BRS to EES for the treatment of coronary artery disease were searched for within PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus electronic databases up to April 4th 2017. The summary measure used was odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsA total of 5 studies were eligible, including 5219 patients. At 2 years, BRS was associated with higher rates of target lesion failure (9.4% vs 7.2%; OR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; p = 0.008) and device thrombosis (2.3% vs 0.7%; OR = 3.22; 95% CI 1.86 to 5.57; p < 0.0001) compared with EES. The incidence of both early (within 30 days after implantation, 1.1% vs 0.5%, OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.81; p = 0.05) and very-late device thrombosis (>1 year, 0.6% vs 0.1%, OR 4.03, 95% CI 1.37 to 11.82; p = 0.01) was higher with BRS compared with EES.ConclusionsBRS may be associated with worse two-years clinical outcomes compared with EES in patients with coronary artery disease.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0586-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Different mechanisms underlie early and late ScT: although incomplete BRS deployment was a predictor of the former, the latter was associated with large vessel size and BRS undersizing. However, both phenomena are significantly less frequent with an optimized implantation technique. (Mainz Intracoronary Database. The Coronary Slow-flow and Microvascular Diseases Registry [MICAT]; NCT02180178).

BackgroundDiabetes is among the strongest predictors of outcome after coronary artery stenting and the incidence of negative outcomes is still high in this specific group. Data of long-term outcomes comparing diabetic patients with non-diabetic patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds are still incomplete. This work evaluates the long-term outcomes after implantation of a coronary bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) in diabetic patients compared to non-diabetics.MethodsPatients who received at least one Absorb BRS in the time of May 2012 to December 2014 were enrolled into this single-center registry. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed.ResultsSix hundred fifty seven patients including 138 patients (21%, mean age 65 ± 11, 78% male) with diabetes were enrolled.Patients in the diabetic group were significantly older, were more likely to suffer from hypertension and hyperlipidemia and had more often a prior stroke or TIA as well as a reduced renal function (all P < 0.05). The initial stenosis was less severe in the diabetic group (74.8% vs. 79.6%, P = 0.036), but the residual stenosis after BRS implantation exceeded that of the control group (16.7% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.006).History of diabetes had no impact on the incidence of events within one year after BRS implantation. Beyond 1 year, diabetic patients had a higher incidence of cardiovascular death (6.9 vs. 1.4%, HR:5.37 [1.33–21.71], P = 0.001), scaffold restenosis (17.6 vs. 7.8%, HR:3.56 [1.40–9.05], P < 0.0001) and target lesion revascularization (P = 0.016). These results were confirmed in the propensity score analysis.In both diabetics and non-diabetics, there was a strong association (HR:18.6 [4.7–73.3]) between the risk of restenosis and the technique used at implantation; in contrast, the impact of vessel size was more manifest in non-diabetics than in diabetic patients, and an increased risk of restenosis was demonstrated for both large and small vessels.ConclusionAs for metal stents, beyond one year after implantation, diabetes was associated with an increased incidence of scaffold restenosis and related outcomes. This negative impact of diabetes was reset when an optimal implantation technique was used.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-018-0811-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Coronary scaffolds have been recently developed to address the long-term limitations of metallic drug eluting stents. Concerns have however been expressed on the safety of these devices, with evidence of both early and late scaffold thrombosis. While early thrombosis has been associated with incomplete scaffold expansion, leading to flow disturbances, blood recirculation, and platelet activation, the pathophysiology of late events remains less understood. Recent cases series have shown that malapposition and scaffold dismantling might play a role in this phenomenon, an observation that further confirms the importance of an accurate implantation. Further, the role of dual antiplatelet therapy, and whether prolonging it may reduce event rates, remains to be elucidated. As well, the role of inflammatory phenomena has been proposed but never demonstrated. This brief review summarizes the current evidence on these phenomena.

Malapposition is a common finding in stent and scaffold thrombosis (ScT). Evidence from studies with prospective follow-up, however, is scarce. We hypothesized that incidental observations of strut malapposition might be predictive of late ScT during subsequent follow-up. One hundred ninety-seven patients were enrolled in a multicentre registry with prospective follow-up. Optical coherence tomography (OCT), performed in an elective setting, was available in all at 353 (0–376) days after bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) implantation. Forty-four patients showed evidence of malapposition that was deemed not worthy of intervention. Malapposition was not associated with any clinical or procedural parameter except for a higher implantation pressure (p = 0.0008). OCT revealed that malapposition was associated with larger vessel size, less eccentricity (all p < 0.01), and a tendency for more uncovered struts (p = 0.06). Late or very late ScT was recorded in seven of these patients 293 (38–579) days after OCT. OCT-diagnosed malapposition was a predictor of late and very late scaffold thrombosis (p < 0.001) that was independent of the timing of diagnosis. We provide evidence that an incidental finding of malapposition—regardless of the timing of diagnosis of the malapposition—during an elective exam is a predictor of late and very late ScT. Our data provide a rationale to consider prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy if strut malapposition is observed.

No abstract