Nobuaki Kobayashi1, Akiko Maehara, Dominic Allocco, Bernard Witzenbichler, Stephen G Ellis, Mark A Turco, John A Ormiston, Giulio Guagliumi, Songtao Jiang, Thomas C McAndrew, Keith D Dawkins, Gregg W Stone, Gary S Mintz, Neil J Weissman. 1. aNew York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center bClinical Trials Center, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York cBoston Scientific Corporation, Natick, Massachusetts dDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio eVascular Therapies, Covidien fGeorgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia gMedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA hAmper Kliniken AG, Dachau, Germany iCardiology Department, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand jInterventional Cardiology Unit, Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the difference in neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) between ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), stable angina pectoris (SAP), and unstable angina pectoris (UAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From formal core laboratory intravascular ultrasound substudies, we compared NIH after paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or bare metal stents (BMS) in STEMI lesions from HORIZONS-AMI trial with SAP and UAP lesions from TAXUS IV, V, and ATLAS studies. RESULTS: At follow-up, %NIH at the minimum lumen area (MLA) site was less in STEMI (n=212) than in UAP (n=233) and SAP (n=440) lesions treated with PES (19.6 vs. 26.2 vs. 25.0%, P=0.002; all intravascular ultrasound data shown as least-square means in abstract) and less in STEMI (n=66) than in UAP (n=72) and SAP (n=143) lesions treated with BMS (34.0 vs. 26.7 vs. 45.5%, P=0.0003). As a result, MLA at follow-up was larger in STEMI than in UAP and SAP lesions treated with PES (5.9 vs. 5.2 vs. 5.0 mm, P<0.0001) or treated with BMS (5.1 vs. 4.3 vs. 4.0 mm, P=0.002). Net volume obstruction ([NIH/stent volume]×100) at follow-up was significantly less in STEMI than in UAP and SAP lesions treated with PES (7.8 vs. 13.4 vs. 13.4%, P<0.0001) or BMS (20.6 vs. 28.5 vs. 32.1%, P<0.0001). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that STEMI was correlated independently and inversely with net volume obstruction compared with SAP (regression coefficient -6.99, P<0.0001) or UAP (regression coefficient -6.29, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Implantation of PES or BMS in STEMI compared with UAP and SAP was associated with less NIH.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the difference in neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) between ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), stable angina pectoris (SAP), and unstable angina pectoris (UAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From formal core laboratory intravascular ultrasound substudies, we compared NIH after paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or bare metal stents (BMS) in STEMI lesions from HORIZONS-AMI trial with SAP and UAP lesions from TAXUS IV, V, and ATLAS studies. RESULTS: At follow-up, %NIH at the minimum lumen area (MLA) site was less in STEMI (n=212) than in UAP (n=233) and SAP (n=440) lesions treated with PES (19.6 vs. 26.2 vs. 25.0%, P=0.002; all intravascular ultrasound data shown as least-square means in abstract) and less in STEMI (n=66) than in UAP (n=72) and SAP (n=143) lesions treated with BMS (34.0 vs. 26.7 vs. 45.5%, P=0.0003). As a result, MLA at follow-up was larger in STEMI than in UAP and SAP lesions treated with PES (5.9 vs. 5.2 vs. 5.0 mm, P<0.0001) or treated with BMS (5.1 vs. 4.3 vs. 4.0 mm, P=0.002). Net volume obstruction ([NIH/stent volume]×100) at follow-up was significantly less in STEMI than in UAP and SAP lesions treated with PES (7.8 vs. 13.4 vs. 13.4%, P<0.0001) or BMS (20.6 vs. 28.5 vs. 32.1%, P<0.0001). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that STEMI was correlated independently and inversely with net volume obstruction compared with SAP (regression coefficient -6.99, P<0.0001) or UAP (regression coefficient -6.29, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Implantation of PES or BMS in STEMI compared with UAP and SAP was associated with less NIH.