Skip to main content
Download PDF

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for percutaneous treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions: a meta-analysis

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders volume 19, Article number: 59 (2019) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

BRS represent a new approach to treating coronary artery disease. Beneficial properties of BRS regarding the restoration of vasomotility after resorption make them attractive devices in CTO revascularization. However, experience in this setting is limited.

Methods

We systematically searched Medline, Scholar, and Scopus for reports of at least 9 patients with CTO undergoing BRS implantation. Patients’ and procedural characteristics were summarized. The primary outcome of interest was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017069322).

Results

Thirteen reports for a total of 843 lesions with a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR 6–12) were included in the analysis. At short-term, the summary estimate rate of TLR was 2.6% (95% CI: 1 to 4%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.887) while at mid to long-term it was 3.8% (95% CI: 2 to 6%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.803). At long-term follow-up (≥12 months), the summary estimate rate of cardiac death was 1.1% (95% CI: 0 to 2%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.887). The summary estimate rates of scaffold thrombosis and clinical restenosis were respectively 0.9% (95% CI: 0 to 2%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.919) and 1.8% (95% CI: 0 to 4%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.448). Finally, the summary estimate rate of target vessel revascularization was 6.6% (95% CI: 0 to 11%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.04).

Conclusions

Implantation of BRS in a population with CTO is feasible, although further longer-term outcome studies are necessary.

Peer Review reports

Background

Chronic total occlusions (CTO) are present in about 20% of patients with coronary artery disease undergoing elective angiography [1]. Nevertheless, these lesions represent only a minority of the lesions treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even if their treatment is associated with better outcome in terms of angina relief, improved left ventricular function, reduction in the rate of myocardial infarction and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and potentially prolonged survival, particularly in the setting of multivessel disease when complete revascularization is achieved [2].

After successful recanalization of the vessel, stenting is mandatory, preferably with drug-eluting stents (DES), to ensure long-term vessel patency [3]. Although favorable long-term outcome data have been reported after the implantation of DES, the implantation of multiple metallic stents into coronary arteries may lead to an augmented risk of restenosis and thrombosis, impairment of vasomotion and positive remodeling and excludes the possibility of future bypass graft anastomosis within these segments [4]. In this setting, bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) might therefore have potential advantages: avoidance of long coronary segments covered with metallic prostheses, restoration of endothelial function and normal vasomotor tone at least within noncalcified segments, long-term favourable vessel remodeling; finally, struts resorption preserves the possibility of further interventions by percutaneous or surgical means [5].

Conversely, there are also many limitations of BRS use in this subset of lesions: severely calcified vessels may be poorly accessible for bulky devices, and their low radial strength bear the risk of vessel recoil and underestimation of vessel size raise the risk of malapposition.

Importantly, CTO lesions were excluded in all BRS randomized controlled trials published to date [6,7,8,9], and all available evidence derives from small single-center, single-arm studies. We therefore undertook a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies examining the clinical outcomes of patients with chronic coronary occlusion undergoing BRS implantation.

Methods

Search strategy

Electronic searches were performed using Pubmed, Scholar, and Scopus electronic database up to June 13th, 2017. We checked the reference lists from all eligible studies to identify additional citations. The following keywords and the corresponding MeSH terms were used for search: “bioresorbable vascular scaffold”, “chronic total occlusion”, “coronary artery disease”. Time of publication was not limiting criterium for our analysis. All reports including the search terms were independently screened by two investigators for relevance and eligibility (AP, SDR) and any disagreement was resolved by consensus. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017069322).

Study selection

Inclusion criteria: 1) patients with at least one coronary chronic total occlusion 2) reports of a minimum of 9 patients with a follow-up at least of 1 month; 3) original articles reporting at least one of these outcomes: target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), scaffold thrombosis (ScT), scaffold restenosis (ScR), cardiac death and 4) reports written in English language.

Exclusion criteria: 1) duplicate publication 2) pre-specified endpoint 3) measure not specified. If duplicate studies were identified, only the most exhaustive and recent reports were retained.

Data extraction

Baseline characteristics as well as numbers of events were extracted from the single studies, through scanning of the full article by two independent reviewers (AP, SDR). Divergences were resolved by consensus.

The following data were abstracted: year of publication, location, number of study patients, study design, clinical outcome data, baseline patients’ characteristics, and procedural characteristics.

Study endpoints

TLR was the primary outcome of interest. Secondary outcomes were TVR, ScT, clinical ScR, cardiac death.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables are reported as numbers and percentage, and continuous variables are reported as mean ± SD or median ± IQR. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted in all analyses using the Metaprop command, which allows computation of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the score statistic and the exact binomial method and incorporates the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation of proportions [10]. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed with the I2 statistic. The effect of study-level covariates on the rate of TLR, ScT and ScR was explored with a meta-regression analysis by using the metareg command (Additional file 1). All analyses were performed with OpenMetaAnalyst software version 0.15 [11] and Stata statistical software version 13 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas).

Results

Search results

Our search retrieved a total of 304 entries, which were reduced to 59 studies after an initial pre-screening. 43 studies were then excluded for one of the following reasons: a) they were not related to our research question b) they weren’t original articles. In the assessment of eligibility 1 additional study was excluded because as it is limited to in-hospital outcomes [12]. Finally, a total of 13 studies [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25] with a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR 6–12) were available for the analysis including 843 lesions. The study selection procedure is reported in detail in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study selection flow chart

Full size image

Study characteristics

Table 1 summarizes the patients´ most relevant baseline characteristics for each study.

Table 1 Baseline patient’s characteristics
Full size table

Across studies, patients were predominantly male and had a mean left ventricle ejection more than 50% while the percentages of patients with diabetes (3.3–51.2%), smoking (8–77.8%) and prior-PCI were variable (13.3–56.1%).

Lesion and procedural details are provided in Table 2. The percentage of lesion with moderate/severe calcification (0–70.5%) and that of lesions with a J-CTO score more or equal than 2 (26–100%) were variable while the percentage of post-dilation was almost similar and more than 69.6% in all the studies with the exception of the study by Saad et al. 2016 (25.7%).

Table 2 Lesion and procedural characteristics
Full size table

Meta-analysis

The primary analysis on the composite endpoint of TLR both at short- (< 6 months) and mid to long- (> 11 months) term follow-up including all results of the studies is presented in Fig. 2. At short-term, the summary estimate rate of TLR was 2.6% (95% CI: 1 to 4%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.887, Fig. 2a) while at mid to long-term was 3.8% (95% CI: 2 to 6%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.803, Fig. 2b).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Random effects meta-analysis of target lesion revascularization (TLR) at short-term (panel a) and mid to long-term (panel b) follow-up. (panel c) Random effects meta-analyses of cardiac death, target vessel revascularization, scaffold thrombosis and restenosis at mid to long-term follow-up

Full size image

Secondary endpoints are reported in Fig. 2c. At mid to long-term follow-up, the summary estimate rate of cardiac death was 1.1% (95% CI: 0 to 2%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.887, Fig. 2c, first row). The summary estimate rates of scaffold thrombosis and clinical restenosis were respectively 0.9% (95% CI: 0 to 2%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.919, Fig. 2c, second row) and 1.8% (95% CI: 0 to 4%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.448, Fig. 2c, third row). Finally, the summary estimate rate of target vessel revascularization was 6.6% (95% CI: 0 to 11%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.04, Fig. 2c, fourth row).

Meta-regression analysis

Given the differences between Japan-Chronic Total Occlusion (J-CTO) score between the studies, we used the percentage of interventional procedures with J-CTO ≥ 2 in every single study as a moderator in a meta-regression analysis with the effect size of all endpoints evaluated. Probably due to small sample size, we found only no significant interactions across the studies between J-CTO score ≥ 2 on the incidence of TLR (p = 0.21), ISR (p = 0.11), ScT (p = 0.935). Results of meta-regression analyses are displayed in Additional file 1.

Discussion

Although the studies leading to their CE marking were mostly based on the analysis of outcomes after treatment of simple lesions, BRS have been used since their introduction in increasingly complex ones. In these settings, including thrombotic, ostial or bifurcation lesions or chronic total occlusions, the potential benefits of vascular resorption could theoretically be larger; on the other side, particularly in light of recent meta-analyses reporting inferior results as compared to modern drug eluting stents in simple lesions [26, 27], this use is not based on evidence and outcomes remain to be reported.

In this study, we summarize the clinical evidence on the use of BRS for the treatment of CTOs. Our reported TLR rate of 3.8% (FU > 11 months) compares favorably with that recently reported by Stone et al. (BRS 2.7%, EES 2.3% at 1 year) in a recent meta-analysis of studies on the use of BRS in simple coronary lesions [28]. As well, the rates of TVR (6.6%), cardiac death (1.1%), scaffold thrombosis (0.9%), clinical scaffold restenosis (1.8%) at mid to long-term follow-up are in line with data reported in previous meta-analyses on the use of DES in CTO lesions. For instance, Yang SS et al. in a meta-analysis of 29 studies [29] reported an incidence of 1.35% of DES thrombosis in this setting at 1-year follow-up, while Colmenarez et al. reported, in another meta-analysis, a TVR rate of 11.71% at 6 to 36 months follow-up [30]. In a recent research letter, Brugaletta et al., suggested the use of ticagrelor in patients undergoing PCI of CTO with the potential to improve vascular function and to reduce TLR and symptoms [31]. Taken together, the present data appear to support the use of BRS in CTO setting.

Limitations

First, studies with BRS implantation in CTOs are limited in number and mostly single arm, observational and/or include a small sample size. Second, publication bias may have affected the findings of our meta-analysis of published reports. The lack of routine follow-up angiography in most of the studies does not allow detection of the occurrence of some outcomes like restenosis [32]. Third, although we explored the effect of covariates on the effect size, the results of the meta-regression should be carefully interpreted in view of the use of study-level covariates and overall low statistical power [33,34,35]. Fourth, no data are available on procedural success rates. BRS are bulkier and require a more accurate lesion preparation, which is often harder to achieve in complex lesions [36,37,38,39,40,41]. Finally, the present data reflect outcomes of BRS in selected centers with expertise in this specific setting, and any assumption of safety should be taken with caution.

Conclusions

Implantation of BRS in a population with CTO is feasible, although further longer-term outcome studies are necessary.

Abbreviations

BRS:

Bioresorbable scaffolds

CABG:

Coronary artery bypass grafting

CTO:

Chronic total occlusions

DES:

Drug-eluting stents

MACE:

Major adverse cardiovascular events

MI:

Myocardial infarction

PCI:

Percutaneous coronary interventions

ScR:

Scaffold restenosis

ScT:

Scaffold thrombosis

TLR:

Target-lesion revascularization

TVF:

Target vessel failure

TVR:

Target-vessel revascularization

References

  1. Galassi AR, Brilakis ES, Boukhris M, et al. Appropriateness of percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions: an overview. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2692–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jones DA, Weerackody R, Rathod K, et al. Successful recanalization of chronic total occlusions is associated with improved long-term survival. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:380–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Roffi M, Iglesias JF. CTO PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus: sweet perspectives. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:2182–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dinesch V, Buruian M. Drug-eluting stent failure: A complex scenario. Int J Cardiol. 2017;247:26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Indolfi C, De Rosa S, Colombo A. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds - basic concepts and clinical outcome. Nat Rev Cardio. 2016;13:719–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gao R, Yang Y. Han yet al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB China trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:2298–309.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Onuma Y, Sotomi Y, Shiomi H, et al. Two-year clinical, angiographic, and serial optical coherence tomographic follow-up after implantation of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and an everolimus-eluting metallic stent: insights from the randomised ABSORB Japan trial. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:1090–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chevalier B, Onuma Y, van Boven AJ, et al. Randomised comparison of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold with a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de novo native coronary artery lesions: the 2-year clinical outcomes of the ABSORB II trial. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:1102–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wykrzykowska JJ, Kraak RP, Hofma SH, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds versus metallic stents in routine PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2319–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M. Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health. 2014;72:39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wallace BC, Dahabreh IJ, Schmid CH, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Modernizing the systematic review process to inform comparative effectiveness: tools and methods. J Comp Eff Res. 2013;2:273–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. La Manna A, Chisari A, Giacchi G, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus second generation drug-eluting stents for percutaneous treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions: technical and procedural outcomes from the GHOST-CTO registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88:E155–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ojeda S, Pan M, Romero M, et al. Outcomes and computed tomography scan follow-up of bioresorbable vascular scaffold for the percutaneous treatment of chronic total coronary artery occlusion. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115:1487–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wiebe J, Liebetrau C, Dörr O, et al. Feasibility of everolimuseluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with chronic total occlusion. Int J Cardiol. 2015;179:90–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vaquerizo B, Barros A, Pujadas S, et al. One-year results of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for coronary chronic total occlusions. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117:906–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Azzalini L, Giustino G, Ojeda S, et al. Procedural and Long-Term Outcomes of Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic Total Occlusions: The BONITO Registry (Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic Total Occlusions). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(10). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004284.

  17. Abellas-Sequeiros RA, Ocaranza-Sanchez R, Trillo-Nouche R, Gonzalez-Juanatey C, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in coronary chronic total occlusions revascularization: safety assessment related to struts coverage and apposition in 6-month OCT follow-up. Heart Vessel. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-017-0980-9.

  18. Mitomo S, Naganuma T, Fujino Y, et al. Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds for the Treatment of Chronic Total Occlusions: An International Multicenter Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004265.

  19. Yamaç AH, Yıldız A, Nasifov M, Taştan A, Bashirov N, Göktekin Ö. Clinical and angiographic outcomes at more than 1 year after treatment of chronic total occlusions with the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2016;44:647–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kugler C, Markovic S, Rottbauer W, Wöhrle J. Bioresorbable scaffolds compared with everolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of chronic coronary total occlusion: clinical and angiographic results of a matched paired comparison. Coron Artery Dis. 2017;28:120–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lesiak M, Łanocha M, Araszkiewicz A, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion of the coronary artery with the implantation of bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffolds. Poznan CTO-Absorb Pilot Registry. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:e144–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Özel E, Taştan A, Öztürk A, Özcan EE, Kilicaslan B, Özdogan Ö. Procedural and one-year clinical outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of chronic total occlusions: a single-Centre experience. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2016;27:345–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Goktekin O, Yamac AH, Latib A, et al. Evaluation of the safety of Everolimus-eluting Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation in patients with chronic Total coronary occlusions: acute procedural and short-term clinical results. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015;27:461–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fam JM, Ojeda S, Garbo R, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for treatment of complex chronic total occlusions. EuroIntervention. 2017;13:355–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Saad M, Abdin A, Thiele H, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in a real-world patient population-results from a mid-term angiographic follow-up. J Interv Cardiol. 2016;29:341–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Polimeni A, Anadol R, Munzel T, Indolfi C, De Rosa S, Gori T. Long-term outcome of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of RCTs. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017;17:147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sorrentino S, Giustino G, Mehran R, et al. Everolimus-eluting Bioresorbable scaffolds versus Everolimus-eluting metallic stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:3055–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Stone GW, Gao R, Kimura T, et al. 1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;387:1277–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Yang SS, Tang L, Ge GG, et al. Efficacy of drug-eluting stent for chronic total coronary occlusions at different follow-up duration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19:1101–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Colmenarez HJ, Escaned J, Fernández C, et al. Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents in chronic total coronary occlusion recanalization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1854–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Brugaletta S, Gomez-Lara J, Caballero J, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for recovery of vascular function immediately after successful chronic coronary total occlusion recanalization: a randomized clinical trial. Am Heart J. 2018;204:205–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Polimeni A, Weissner M, Schochlow K, et al. Incidence, clinical presentation, and predictors of clinical restenosis in coronary Bioresorbable scaffolds. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:1819–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Polimeni A, De Rosa S, Sabatino J, Sorrentino S, Indolfi C. Impact of intracoronary adenosine administration during primary PCI: a meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2016;203:1032–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. De Rosa S, Polimeni A, Petraco R, Davies JE, Indolfi C. Diagnostic performance of the instantaneous wave-free ratio: comparison with fractional flow reserve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:e004613.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. De Rosa S, Sievert H, Sabatino J, Polimeni A, Sorrentino S, Indolfi C. Percutaneous closure versus medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen Ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-3033.

  36. Anadol R, Lorenz L, Weissner M, et al. Characteristics and outcome of patients with complex coronary lesions treated with bioresorbable scaffolds Three years follow-up in a cohort of consecutive patients. EuroIntervention. 2017. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00410.

  37. Anadol R, Schnitzler K, Lorenz L, et al. Three-years outcomes of diabetic patients treated with coronary bioresorbable scaffolds. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2018;18:92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Anadol R, Dimitriadis Z, Polimeni A, et al. Bioresorbable everolimus-eluting vascular scaffold for patients presenting with non STelevation-acute coronary syndrome: a three-years follow-up1. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2018;69:3–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Gori T, Weissner M, Gönner S, et al. Characteristics, predictors, and mechanisms of thrombosis in coronary Bioresorbable scaffolds: differences between early and late events. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:2363–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Biscaglia S, Ugo F, Ielasi A, Secco GG, Durante A, D'Ascenzo F, et al. Bioresorbable scaffold vs. second generation drug eluting stent in long coronary lesions requiring overlap: a propensity-matched comparison (the UNDERDOGS study). Int J Cardiol. 2016;208:40–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gori T; Polimeni A; Adriaenssen T et al. Predictors of stent thrombosis and their implications for clinical practice. Nat. Rev. Cardiol.; 2018;In press. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-018-0118-5.

Download references

Acknowledgements

None

Funding

None

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ciro Indolfi and Tommaso Gori contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kardiologie I, Zentrum für Kardiologie, University Medical Center Mainz and DZHK Standort Rhein-Main, Mainz, Germany

    Alberto Polimeni, Remzi Anadol, Thomas Münzel, Martin Geyer & Tommaso Gori

  2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, “Magna Graecia” University, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy

    Alberto Polimeni, Salvatore De Rosa & Ciro Indolfi

  3. URT-CNR, Department of Medicine, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche of IFC, Viale Europa S/N, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy

    Ciro Indolfi

Authors
  1. Alberto Polimeni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Remzi Anadol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Münzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Geyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Salvatore De Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ciro Indolfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tommaso Gori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AP, SDR, and TG designed the study and acquired, analysed, and interpreted data. AP, MG and RA did the literature search and study selection procedures. TM and CI drafted the manuscript, with critical revisions for important intellectual content from all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tommaso Gori.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional file

Additional file 1:

Metaregression analyses - The effect of study-level covariates on the rate of TLR, ScR and ScT. (PPTX 161 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Polimeni, A., Anadol, R., Münzel, T. et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for percutaneous treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions: a meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 19, 59 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-019-1042-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-019-1042-2

Keywords

  • Bioresorbable vascular scaffold
  • Chronic total occlusion
  • Meta-analysis

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2261

Contact us