OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the coronary angioscopic appearance of neointimal coverage (NIC) over durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (XIENCE-EES) and bioresorbable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (SYNERGY-EES) 1 year after implantation. BACKGROUND: XIENCE-EES and SYNERGY-EES have been developed to prevent delayed arterial healing associated with first generation drug-eluting stents. However, the process of arterial healing after XIENCE-EES and SYNERGY-EES implantation has not been clarified. METHODS: Patients who underwent implantation of XIENCE-EES (n = 20) or SYNERGY-EES (n = 20) were enrolled in this study. Coronary angiography and coronary angioscopy were performed 12 ± 1 months after stent implantation. The NIC over the stent was classified into four grades: grade 0, stent struts fully exposed; grade 1, stent struts bulging into the lumen and, still visible; grade 2, stent struts embedded in neointima but still visible; and grade 3, stent struts fully embedded and invisible. Stents exhibiting more than one NIC grade was defined as heterogeneous. Moreover, presence of thrombi was investigated. RESULTS: The distribution of dominant NIC grade (XIENCE-EES: grade 0, 0%; grade 1, 25%; grade 2, 50%; grade 3, 25%; SYNERGY-EES: grade 0, 0%; grade 1, 5%; grade 2, 15%; grade 3, 80%; P = 0.002) and NIC heterogeneity was significantly different (P = 0.004). Thrombi were more frequent in XIENCE-EES than in SYNERGY-EES (40 versus 10%, respectively; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Compared with XIENCE-EES, SYNERGY-EES were well covered by neointima and accompanied by fewer thrombi. These findings implied arterial healing of SYNERGY-EES was better than that of XIENCE-EES.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the coronary angioscopic appearance of neointimal coverage (NIC) over durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (XIENCE-EES) and bioresorbable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (SYNERGY-EES) 1 year after implantation. BACKGROUND: XIENCE-EES and SYNERGY-EES have been developed to prevent delayed arterial healing associated with first generation drug-eluting stents. However, the process of arterial healing after XIENCE-EES and SYNERGY-EES implantation has not been clarified. METHODS:Patients who underwent implantation of XIENCE-EES (n = 20) or SYNERGY-EES (n = 20) were enrolled in this study. Coronary angiography and coronary angioscopy were performed 12 ± 1 months after stent implantation. The NIC over the stent was classified into four grades: grade 0, stent struts fully exposed; grade 1, stent struts bulging into the lumen and, still visible; grade 2, stent struts embedded in neointima but still visible; and grade 3, stent struts fully embedded and invisible. Stents exhibiting more than one NIC grade was defined as heterogeneous. Moreover, presence of thrombi was investigated. RESULTS: The distribution of dominant NIC grade (XIENCE-EES: grade 0, 0%; grade 1, 25%; grade 2, 50%; grade 3, 25%; SYNERGY-EES: grade 0, 0%; grade 1, 5%; grade 2, 15%; grade 3, 80%; P = 0.002) and NIC heterogeneity was significantly different (P = 0.004). Thrombi were more frequent in XIENCE-EES than in SYNERGY-EES (40 versus 10%, respectively; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Compared with XIENCE-EES, SYNERGY-EES were well covered by neointima and accompanied by fewer thrombi. These findings implied arterial healing of SYNERGY-EES was better than that of XIENCE-EES.