OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the neointimal response of metallic everolimus drug-eluting stents (DES) and polymeric everolimus bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) by optical coherence tomography at 1 year. BACKGROUND:DES decrease the risk of restenosis by reducing the neointimal response. However, DES may impair strut coverage, and this has been associated with late stent/scaffold thrombosis. BVS may overcome the risk of stent/scaffold thrombosis when completely resorbed. It is unknown if, during the bioresorption process, the neointimal response of the everolimus BVS (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) differs from that of the metallic everolimus DES (Xience, Abbott Vascular). METHODS: A total of 19 lesions were treated with a single everolimus DES, and 31 lesions were treated with everolimus BVS and imaged with optical coherence tomography at 1 year. Neointimal response was assessed as percentage of uncovered struts, neointimal thickness, in-stent/scaffold area obstruction, and pattern of neointima. RESULTS: At 1 year, no significant differences in the angiographic lumen loss were seen for the everolimus DES and everolimus BVS (0.18 ± 0.20 mm vs. 0.29 ± 0.36 mm; p = 0.42). optical coherence tomography analysis of 951 cross sections and 8,385 struts demonstrated similar rates of uncovered struts (5.3% everolimus DES vs. 4.5% everolimus BVS; p = 0.11), mean neointimal thickness (120.6 ± 46.0 μm vs. 136.1 ± 71.4 μm; p = 0.82) and in-stent/scaffold area obstruction (12.5 ± 7.1% vs. 13.6 ± 9.7%; p = 0.91), respectively. There was a trend of higher heterogenic tissue pattern of neointima (21.1% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.12) and less intraluminal masses (0% vs. 12.9%; p = 0.10) with everolimus DES than with everolimus BVS. CONCLUSIONS: The everolimus BVS (Absorb) demonstrated a similar neointimal response as the everolimus DES (Xience). However, the presence of intraluminal masses at 12 months in a small proportion of patients warranted watchful follow-up of these cases.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the neointimal response of metallic everolimus drug-eluting stents (DES) and polymeric everolimus bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) by optical coherence tomography at 1 year. BACKGROUND: DES decrease the risk of restenosis by reducing the neointimal response. However, DES may impair strut coverage, and this has been associated with late stent/scaffold thrombosis. BVS may overcome the risk of stent/scaffold thrombosis when completely resorbed. It is unknown if, during the bioresorption process, the neointimal response of the everolimus BVS (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) differs from that of the metallic everolimus DES (Xience, Abbott Vascular). METHODS: A total of 19 lesions were treated with a single everolimus DES, and 31 lesions were treated with everolimus BVS and imaged with optical coherence tomography at 1 year. Neointimal response was assessed as percentage of uncovered struts, neointimal thickness, in-stent/scaffold area obstruction, and pattern of neointima. RESULTS: At 1 year, no significant differences in the angiographic lumen loss were seen for the everolimus DES and everolimus BVS (0.18 ± 0.20 mm vs. 0.29 ± 0.36 mm; p = 0.42). optical coherence tomography analysis of 951 cross sections and 8,385 struts demonstrated similar rates of uncovered struts (5.3% everolimus DES vs. 4.5% everolimus BVS; p = 0.11), mean neointimal thickness (120.6 ± 46.0 μm vs. 136.1 ± 71.4 μm; p = 0.82) and in-stent/scaffold area obstruction (12.5 ± 7.1% vs. 13.6 ± 9.7%; p = 0.91), respectively. There was a trend of higher heterogenic tissue pattern of neointima (21.1% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.12) and less intraluminal masses (0% vs. 12.9%; p = 0.10) with everolimus DES than with everolimus BVS. CONCLUSIONS: The everolimus BVS (Absorb) demonstrated a similar neointimal response as the everolimus DES (Xience). However, the presence of intraluminal masses at 12 months in a small proportion of patients warranted watchful follow-up of these cases.
Authors: Michele Pighi; Fabrizio Tomai; Alessandro Petrolini; Leonardo de Luca; Giuseppe Tarantini; Alberto Barioli; Paola Colombo; Silvio Klugmann; Marco Ferlini; Maurizio Ferrario Ormezzano; Bruno Loi; Paolo Calabrò; Renato Maria Bianchi; Giuseppe Faggian; Alberto Forni; Corrado Vassanelli; Marco Valgimigli; Flavio Ribichini Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Petr Toušek; Viktor Kočka; Martin Malý; Libor Lisa; Tomáš Buděšínský; Petr Widimský Journal: Heart Vessels Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Maik J Grundeken; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Robin P Kraak; P Woudstra; Daniel M de Bruin; Ton G van Leeuwen; Karel T Koch; Jan G Tijssen; Robbert J de Winter; Joanna J Wykrzykowska Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-07-26 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Mazen S Albaghdadi; Jian Yang; Jessica H Brown; Neel A Mansukhani; Guillermo A Ameer; Melina R Kibbe Journal: Adv Mater Technol Date: 2017-02-20
Authors: Manel Sabaté; Stephan Windecker; Andres Iñiguez; Lisette Okkels-Jensen; Angel Cequier; Salvatore Brugaletta; Sjoerd H Hofma; Lorenz Räber; Evald Høi Christiansen; Maarten Suttorp; Thomas Pilgrim; Gerrit Anne van Es; Yohei Sotomi; Hector M García-García; Yoshinobu Onuma; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Milosz Jaguszewski; Jelena-Rima Ghadri; Manuel Zipponi; Dana Roxana Bataiosu; Johanna Diekmann; Verena Geyer; Catharina Anna Neumann; Mia Aurelia Huber; Christian Hagl; Paul Erne; Thomas F Lüscher; Christian Templin Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-08-31 Impact factor: 5.460