Literature DB >> 28144009

Author`s Reply.

Erdem Özel1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 28144009      PMCID: PMC5324869     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol        ISSN: 2149-2263            Impact factor:   1.596


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor, We appreciate the valuable comments and critique of our colleague in response to our article entitled “What is better for predilatation in bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: a non-compliant or a compliant balloon?” published in the April 2016 issue of the Anatolian Journal of Cardiology (1). We have some contributions to offer. Bioresorbable stent (BRS) is novel technology that is still being refined, and technical aspects of implantation have evolved over the last several years. In our retrospective study we analyzed patients who had received BRS treatment between January 2013 and November 2013. Now, in 2016, we completely agree that proper postdilatation is mandatory when implanting BRS. In 2013, however, importance of postdilatation was not very clear and postdilatation rate was 40% to 50% in large registries (2, 3). Our postdilatation rate was similar to that of previous studies. Avoiding BRS fracture was a factor that contributed to lower rate of postdilatation in BRS procedures. Smaller minimum lesion diameter after BRS implantation was another aspect that led to higher rate of postdilatation in compliant balloon group in our study. Consistent with numerous data in recent literature, we currently advise routine postdilatation with non-compliant balloon after BRS implantation. We agree with the remarks of our colleague about use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), and especially optical cohe- rence tomography (OCT) to assess scaffold apposition. Lack of use of intravascular imaging studies is a disadvantage of our study, but we have to also recall that rate of IVUS and OCT use is very low in real world practice (2) and majority of implantations were made under fluoroscopic guidance. Reimbursement difficulty in our country is another factor that limits routine use of OCT. Routine use of intravascular imaging studies will increase full apposition rate of BRS procedures. In conclusion, using IVUS or OCT to check apposition of BRS after implantation and routine postdilatation with non-compliant balloon after BRS implantation are very important technical steps in BRS procedure.
  3 in total

1.  Percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine clinical practice: early and midterm outcomes from the European multicentre GHOST-EU registry.

Authors:  Davide Capodanno; Tommaso Gori; Holger Nef; Azeem Latib; Julinda Mehilli; Maciej Lesiak; Giuseppe Caramanno; Christoph Naber; Carlo Di Mario; Antonio Colombo; Piera Capranzano; Jens Wiebe; Aleksander Araszkiewicz; Salvatore Geraci; Stelios Pyxaras; Alessio Mattesini; Toru Naganuma; Thomas Münzel; Corrado Tamburino
Journal:  EuroIntervention       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 6.534

2.  Comparison of early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold and everolimus-eluting stent implantation in a real-world population.

Authors:  Charis Costopoulos; Azeem Latib; Toru Naganuma; Tadashi Miyazaki; Katsumasa Sato; Filippo Figini; Alessandro Sticchi; Mauro Carlino; Alaide Chieffo; Matteo Montorfano; Antonio Colombo
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  What is better for predilatation in bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: a non-compliant or a compliant balloon?

Authors:  Erdem Özel; Ahmet Taştan; Ali Öztürk; Emin Evren Özcan; Samet Uyar; Ömer Şenarslan
Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol       Date:  2015-06-18       Impact factor: 1.596

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.