OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore the relationship of neointimal thickness (NT) to shear stress (SS) after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). We then tested the hypothesis that drug elution attenuates the SS effect. BACKGROUND: Neointimal thickness after BMS implantation has been associated with SS; pertinent data for drug-eluting stents (DES) are limited. METHODS: Three-dimensional coronary artery and stent reconstruction was performed in 30 patients at 6-month follow-up after SES (n = 10), PES (n = 10), or BMS (n = 10) implantation. Baseline SS at the stent surface was calculated using computational fluid dynamics and NT at follow-up was computed in 3-dimensional space. RESULTS: Neointimal thickness was lower in DES versus BMS (0.03 ± 0.07 mm vs. 0.16 ± 0.08 mm, p < 0.001) and maximum NT was reduced in SES versus PES (0.33 ± 0.13 mm vs. 0.46 ± 0.13 mm, p = 0.025). In the total population, both SS (slope: -0.05 mm/Pa, p < 0.001) and DES (coefficient for DES vs. BMS: -0.17 mm, p = 0.003) were independent predictors of NT. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant negative relationship of NT to SS in PES (slope: -0.05 mm/Pa, p = 0.016) and BMS (slope: -0.05 mm/Pa, p = 0.001). Sirolimus elution significantly attenuated the effect of SS on NT (interaction coefficient for SES vs. BMS: 0.04 mm/Pa, p = 0.023), whereas the SS effect remained unchanged in PES (interaction coefficient for PES vs. BMS: 0.01 mm/Pa, p = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Neointimal thickness is significantly correlated (inversely) to SS in PES as in BMS. Sirolimus elution abrogates the SS effect on the neointimal response following stent implantation, whereas the SS effect is unchanged in PES.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore the relationship of neointimal thickness (NT) to shear stress (SS) after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). We then tested the hypothesis that drug elution attenuates the SS effect. BACKGROUND: Neointimal thickness after BMS implantation has been associated with SS; pertinent data for drug-eluting stents (DES) are limited. METHODS: Three-dimensional coronary artery and stent reconstruction was performed in 30 patients at 6-month follow-up after SES (n = 10), PES (n = 10), or BMS (n = 10) implantation. Baseline SS at the stent surface was calculated using computational fluid dynamics and NT at follow-up was computed in 3-dimensional space. RESULTS: Neointimal thickness was lower in DES versus BMS (0.03 ± 0.07 mm vs. 0.16 ± 0.08 mm, p < 0.001) and maximum NT was reduced in SES versus PES (0.33 ± 0.13 mm vs. 0.46 ± 0.13 mm, p = 0.025). In the total population, both SS (slope: -0.05 mm/Pa, p < 0.001) and DES (coefficient for DES vs. BMS: -0.17 mm, p = 0.003) were independent predictors of NT. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant negative relationship of NT to SS in PES (slope: -0.05 mm/Pa, p = 0.016) and BMS (slope: -0.05 mm/Pa, p = 0.001). Sirolimus elution significantly attenuated the effect of SS on NT (interaction coefficient for SES vs. BMS: 0.04 mm/Pa, p = 0.023), whereas the SS effect remained unchanged in PES (interaction coefficient for PES vs. BMS: 0.01 mm/Pa, p = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Neointimal thickness is significantly correlated (inversely) to SS in PES as in BMS. Sirolimus elution abrogates the SS effect on the neointimal response following stent implantation, whereas the SS effect is unchanged in PES.
Authors: M Fujimoto; H Takao; T Suzuki; Y Shobayashi; F Mayor; S Tateshima; M Yamamoto; Y Murayama; F Viñuela Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Gabriel T R Pereira; Alessio La Manna; Yasuhiro Ichibori; Armando Vergara-Martel; Bruno Ramos Nascimento; Abdul Jawwad Samdani; Davide Capodanno; Guido D'Agosta; Giacomo Gravina; Giuseppe Venuti; Corrado Tamburino; Guilherme F Attizzani Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: David J Quam; Timothy J Gundert; Laura Ellwein; Christopher E Larkee; Paul Hayden; Raymond Q Migrino; Hiromasa Otake; John F LaDisa Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: F Economou; S Katranas; G Giannoglou; K Gemitzis; I Styliadis; G Efthimiadis; H Karvounis; A Ziakas Journal: Herz Date: 2016-10-12 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: Miao Chu; Juan Luis Gutiérrez-Chico; Yingguang Li; Emil N Holck; Su Zhang; Jiayue Huang; Zehang Li; Lianglong Chen; Evald H Christiansen; Jouke Dijkstra; Niels R Holm; Shengxian Tu Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Jesse W Rowley; Aloke V Finn; Patricia A French; Lisa K Jennings; Danny Bluestein; Peter L Gross; Jane E Freedman; Steven R Steinhubl; Guy A Zimmerman; Richard C Becker; Harold L Dauerman; Susan S Smyth Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Christos V Bourantas; Farouc A Jaffer; Frank J Gijsen; Gijs van Soest; Sean P Madden; Brian K Courtney; Ali M Fard; Erhan Tenekecioglu; Yaping Zeng; Antonius F W van der Steen; Stanislav Emelianov; James Muller; Peter H Stone; Laura Marcu; Guillermo J Tearney; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 29.983