Different behaviors of bioresorbable vascular scaffold in different types of calcified lesion: Insights from intravascular imaging

0Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A 55-year-old male underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for left anterior descending artery chronic total occlusion. After lesion preparation with non-compliant (NC) balloon, two bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (2.5/28 mm, 3.0/28 mm, Absorb BVS, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) were implanted followed by 1:1 sized NC balloon post-dilatation at 20 atm. Final intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) showed acceptable BVS expansion in diffusely calcified lesions. Twenty-one months’ follow-up coronary angiography revealed severe restenosis with reocclusion at the distal edge of the distal BVS. After recanalization with a 1.0 mm balloon, optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed. Quantitative analysis comparing OCT and IVUS at the index procedure demonstrated that minimum scaffold area at follow-up became significantly smaller and with higher eccentricity, suggesting severe recoil at the lesions with thick calcium spot, whereas these changes were not observed at the lesion with relatively thin calcification. The lesions were successfully revascularized with drug-eluting stents and final OCT showed symmetric expansion of metallic stents. Our case demonstrates that different types of calcification can have an impact on BVS expansion and recoil. In calcified lesions, an optimal implantation technique is mandatory to achieve the best possible results, and characterization of calcified lesions with intravascular imaging may be helpful to decide PCI strategy with BVS.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mitomo, S., Tanaka, A., Candilio, L., Azzalini, L., Carlino, M., Latib, A., & Colombo, A. (2018). Different behaviors of bioresorbable vascular scaffold in different types of calcified lesion: Insights from intravascular imaging. Journal of Cardiology Cases, 17(4), 126–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jccase.2017.12.003

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free