INTERVENTIONAL FLASHLIGHT

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00981

Evidence of acute giant cell reaction post bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation

Andrew D. Mulligan1, BSc, MBBS; Cheng Yee Goh1, MBChB; Sarah Parsons2,3, MBBS; William Chan1,3,4,5*, MBBS, PhD

A 53-year-old man died in the coronary care unit of refractory ventricular fibrillation arrest, despite advanced life support resuscitative efforts, 150 minutes post implantation of an Absorb™ (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in the mid right coronary artery (RCA) (Panel A, white line) due to right ventricular marginal branch occlusion by the BVS (Panel A, white arrow). The mid RCA stenosis was predilated with a 2.5×15 mm compliant balloon, followed by implantation of 3.5×28 mm Absorb BVS deployed at 16 atm and post-dilated with a 3.75×8 mm non-compliant balloon at 18 atm. This was 30 days after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to the mid left anterior descending artery (LAD) with two overlapping Absorb BVS.

Post-mortem histopathology of the RCA BVS demonstrated square punched out areas representing the scaffold struts (Panel B, black arrows). Examination of a single representative strut demonstrated seven giant cells (Panel C, black arrows), five macrophages (Panel C, white arrow), and four polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMN) (Panel C, black dashed arrows) and fibrin (Panel C, white dashed arrow), along the edge of the strut.

The LAD BVS that was inserted 30 days prior was also examined to compare with the findings of the RCA. The outline of the struts can be seen (Panel D, black arrows; Panel E, white arrow). A representative section of the LAD BVS revealed occasional giant cells (Panel E, black arrow), PMN (Panel E, black dashed arrow; Panel F, black dashed arrow), eosinophil (Panel F, black arrow) and macrophage (Panel F, red arrow). The intima and media also showed giant cells, macrophages and PMN associated with cholesterol clefts.

Foreign body type giant cells are formed when a foreign particle size exceeds the capacity of a macrophage to engulf it1. They are commonly observed around biomaterial implants that stimulate an immune or inflammatory response, and are thought to be responsible for the degradation of biodegradable products1.

Giant cell reaction has previously been observed as early as day 3 with BVS2. A study using optical coherence tomography demonstrated that one third of BVS are fully resorbed at two years, and all BVS at five years3. The heterogeneity in the resorption rate can be explained by the relationship between the rate of material degradation and the degree of inflammatory response to the material1. Abnormal immune responses to stents have been previously described such as eosinophilic hypersensitivity reactions in first-generation sirolimus drug-eluting stents2.

Although long-term data exist for the Absorb BVS, the acute or short-term inflammatory response remains poorly understood. This is the earliest report of foreign body type giant cell reaction to Absorb BVS in humans.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Volume 13 Number 11
Dec 20, 2017
Volume 13 Number 11
View full issue


Key metrics

On the same subject

EXPERT REVIEW

10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00499 Aug 25, 2017
State of the art: the inception, advent and future of fully bioresorbable scaffolds
Katagiri Y et al
free

IMAGE IN CARDIOLOGY

10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00259 Mar 20, 2017
Neoatherosclerosis: an emerging and conceptually unexpected cause of very late bioresorbable vascular scaffold failure
Hiltrop N et al
free

10.4244/EIJV13I13A242 Jan 19, 2018
Polymeric bioresorbable coronary scaffolds: the hype is over, but the dream lives on
Pyxaras S and Wijns W
free

10.4244/EIJV11I12A259 Mar 18, 2016
Oversized post-dilatation of current bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: kill or cure?
von Birgelen C and Basalus M
free

10.4244/EIJV14I9A176 Oct 12, 2018
The future of vascular restoration therapy
Sabaté M
free

Debate

10.4244/EIJ-E-23-00015 Jun 19, 2023
Bioresorbable coronary scaffolds are ready for a comeback: pros and cons
Stone GW et al
free
Trending articles
337.88

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00904 Apr 1, 2022
Antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention
Angiolillo D et al
free
283.98

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00695 Nov 19, 2021
Transcatheter treatment for tricuspid valve disease
Praz F et al
free
226.03

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00426 Dec 3, 2021
Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary artery disease
Lindahl B et al
free
209.5

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01034 Jun 3, 2022
Management of in-stent restenosis
Alfonso F et al
free
168.4

Expert review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00690 May 15, 2022
Crush techniques for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions
Moroni F et al
free
150.28

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00776 Apr 3, 2023
Computed tomographic angiography in coronary artery disease
Serruys PW et al
free
103.48

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00018 Dec 4, 2023
Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations
Lunardi M et al
free
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 6.2
2022 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2023)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved