Pawel Gasior1,2, Yanping Cheng3, Jinggang Xia3, Gerard B Conditt3, Jennifer C McGregor3, Renu Virmani4, Juan F Granada3, Grzegorz L Kaluza3. 1. CRF-Skirball Center for Innovation, 8 Corporate Dr., NY, 10965 Orangeburg, United States. p.m.gasior@gmail.com. 2. Division of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland. p.m.gasior@gmail.com. 3. CRF-Skirball Center for Innovation, 8 Corporate Dr., NY, 10965 Orangeburg, United States. 4. CVPath Institute, 9 Firstfield Rd, 20878 Gaithersburg, MD, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The first commercially available bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) had a strut thickness of 156 microns. As such, it had the potential for delivery challenges and higher thrombogenicity. The aim herein, is to evaluate biomechanical performance, pharmacokinetics and vascular healing of a novel thin strut (100 μm) sirolimus eluting BRS (MeRes-100, Meril Life Sciences, Gujarat, India) against the once clinically used BRS (Absorb BVS, Abbott, Santa Clara, CA) in porcine coronary arteries. METHODS: Following device implantation, angiographic and optical coherence tomography (OCT) evaluation were performed at 45, 90, 180 days, 1 year and 2 years. Histological evaluation was per-formed at 30, 90 and 180 days. RESULTS: At 2 years, both lumen (MeRes-100 7.07 ± 1.82 mm² vs. Absorb BVS 7.57 ± 1.39 mm2, p = NS) and scaffold areas (MeRes-100 9.73 ± 1.80 mm² vs. Absorb BVS 9.67 ± 1.25 mm², p = NS) were comparable between tested and control scaffolds. Also, the late lumen area gain at 2 years was similar in both groups tested (MeRes-100 1.03 ± 1.98 mm² vs. Absorb BVS 0.85 ± 1.56 mm², p = NS). Histologic examination up to 6 months showed comparable healing and inflammation profiles for both devices. CONCLUSIONS: The novel sirolimus-eluting BRS with thinner struts and hybrid cell design showed similar biomechanical durability and equivalent inhibition of neointimal proliferation when compared to the first-ever Absorb BVS up to 2 years in normal porcine coronary arteries.
BACKGROUND: The first commercially available bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) had a strut thickness of 156 microns. As such, it had the potential for delivery challenges and higher thrombogenicity. The aim herein, is to evaluate biomechanical performance, pharmacokinetics and vascular healing of a novel thin strut (100 μm) sirolimus eluting BRS (MeRes-100, Meril Life Sciences, Gujarat, India) against the once clinically used BRS (Absorb BVS, Abbott, Santa Clara, CA) in porcine coronary arteries. METHODS: Following device implantation, angiographic and optical coherence tomography (OCT) evaluation were performed at 45, 90, 180 days, 1 year and 2 years. Histological evaluation was per-formed at 30, 90 and 180 days. RESULTS: At 2 years, both lumen (MeRes-100 7.07 ± 1.82 mm² vs. Absorb BVS 7.57 ± 1.39 mm2, p = NS) and scaffold areas (MeRes-100 9.73 ± 1.80 mm² vs. Absorb BVS 9.67 ± 1.25 mm², p = NS) were comparable between tested and control scaffolds. Also, the late lumen area gain at 2 years was similar in both groups tested (MeRes-100 1.03 ± 1.98 mm² vs. Absorb BVS 0.85 ± 1.56 mm², p = NS). Histologic examination up to 6 months showed comparable healing and inflammation profiles for both devices. CONCLUSIONS: The novel sirolimus-eluting BRS with thinner struts and hybrid cell design showed similar biomechanical durability and equivalent inhibition of neointimal proliferation when compared to the first-ever Absorb BVS up to 2 years in normal porcine coronary arteries.
Authors: Josep Gomez-Lara; Salvatore Brugaletta; Roberto Diletti; Scot Garg; Yoshinobu Onuma; Bill D Gogas; Robert Jan van Geuns; Cécile Dorange; Susan Veldhof; Richard Rapoza; Robert Whitbourn; Stephan Windecker; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Evelyn Regar; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Bill D Gogas; Spencer B King; Lucas H Timmins; Tiziano Passerini; Marina Piccinelli; Alessandro Veneziani; Sungho Kim; David S Molony; Don P Giddens; Patrick W Serruys; Habib Samady Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Tobias Koppara; Qi Cheng; Kazuyuki Yahagi; Hiroyoshi Mori; Oscar David Sanchez; Julia Feygin; Eric Wittchow; Frank D Kolodgie; Renu Virmani; Michael Joner Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Patrick W Serruys; Bernard Chevalier; Dariusz Dudek; Angel Cequier; Didier Carrié; Andres Iniguez; Marcello Dominici; René J van der Schaaf; Michael Haude; Luc Wasungu; Susan Veldhof; Lei Peng; Peter Staehr; Maik J Grundeken; Yuki Ishibashi; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Yoshinobu Onuma Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-09-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: T Suzuki; G Kopia; S Hayashi ; L R Bailey; G Llanos; R Wilensky; B D Klugherz; G Papandreou; P Narayan; M B Leon; A C Yeung; F Tio; P S Tsao; R Falotico; A J Carter Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-09-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Konstantinos C Koskinas; Yiannis S Chatzizisis; Antonios P Antoniadis; George D Giannoglou Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-04-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Dean J Kereiakes; Stephen G Ellis; Christopher Metzger; Ronald P Caputo; David G Rizik; Paul S Teirstein; Marc R Litt; Annapoorna Kini; Ameer Kabour; Steven O Marx; Jeffrey J Popma; Robert McGreevy; Zhen Zhang; Charles Simonton; Gregg W Stone Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 24.094