{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06842105263157895, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03684210526315789, 'mean_word_length': 4.530909090909091, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Relation between bioresorbable scaffold sizing using QCA-Dmax and long-term clinical outcomes in 1,232 patients from three study cohorts (ABSORB Cohort B, ABSORB EXTEND, and ABSORB II).

AIMS
This study sought to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes related to scaffold sizing based on quantitative coronary angiography.


METHODS AND RESULTS
A total of 1,248 patients who received Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds in the ABSORB Cohort B, ABSORB EXTEND, and ABSORB II trials were included in the analysis. The incidence of MACE (a composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction [MI], and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation [ID-TLR]) was analysed according to the Dmax subclassification of oversized scaffold group versus non-oversized (any undersize) scaffold group. At three years, event rates were similar in both groups in MACE (9.4% vs. 9.8%, p=0.847), target vessel MI (5.2% vs. 4.8%, p=0.795), and ID-TLR (4.8% vs. 5.8%, p=0.445). Landmark analysis after one year showed that the non-oversized scaffold group had higher rates of MACE (3.2% vs. 6.9%, log-rank p=0.004), target vessel MI (0.7% vs. 2.7%, log-rank p=0.007), and ID-TLR (2.5% vs. 4.7%, log-rank p=0.041).


CONCLUSIONS
Implantation of an undersized scaffold was associated with a higher risk of MACE between one and three years, while in the previous report an oversized scaffold was associated with a higher risk of MACE up to one year. This implies different mechanisms for early and late events after scaffold implantation.