Clinical outcomes following "off-label" versus "established" indications of bioresorbable scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease in a real-world population

Tadashi Miyazaki, Neil Ruparelia, Hiroyoshi Kawamoto, Filippo Figini, Azeem Latib, Antonio Colombo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle


Aims: Our aim was to investigate one-year outcomes in patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) for "off-label" versus currently "established" indications. Methods and results: Consecutive patients treated with BRS between May 2012 and September 2014 in two centres were retrospectively recruited. Patients who met inclusion criteria as defined by the ABSORB III study were allocated to the established indication group (ESTG; 21 patients with 35 lesions) and the remaining patients to the off-label group (OFLG; 168 patients with 225 lesions). Target vessel failure (TVF) and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (id-TLR) at one year were evaluated in both groups. Patients in the OFLG had a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus and longer lesion length. Predilatation, post-dilatation and intracoronary imaging were conducted in the majority of patients. At one-year follow-up, TVF (0% vs. 7.8%, p=0.32) and id-TLR (0% vs. 4.5%, p=0.31) occurred only in the OFLG with no adverse events in the ESTG. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in two OFLG patients (1.3%). Conclusions: In a real-world setting, the majority (88.9%) of patients were treated with BRS for off-label indications. Off-label use of BRS appears to be associated with an acceptable occurrence of outcomes considering the greater complexity of this patient group.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1475-1478
Number of pages4
Issue number13
Publication statusPublished - Apr 1 2016



  • Bioresorbable scaffold (BRS)
  • Off-label use
  • Real-world population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this