BACKGROUND: Polymer-based bioresorbable scaffolds (PBBS) have been assessed for coronary revascularization with mixed outcomes. Few studies have targeted pediatric-specific scaffolds. We sought to assess safety, efficacy, and short-term performance of a dedicated drug-free PBBS pediatric scaffold compared to a standard low-profile bare metal stent (BMS) in central and peripheral arteries of weaned piglets. METHODS: Forty-two devices (22 Elixir poly-L-lactic-acid-based pediatric bioresorbable scaffolds [BRS] [6 × 18 mm] and 20 control BMS Cook Formula 418 [6 × 20 mm]) were implanted in the descending aorta and pulmonary arteries (PAs) of 14 female Yucatan piglets. Quantitative measurements were collected on the day of device deployment and 30 and 90 days postimplantation to compare device patency and integrity. RESULTS: The BRS has a comparable safety profile to the BMS in the acute setting. Late lumen loss (LLL) and percent diameter stenosis (%DS) were not significantly different between BRS and BMS in the PA at 30 days. LLL and %DS were greater for BRS versus BMS in the aorta at 30 days postimplantation (LLL difference: 0.96 ± 0.26; %DS difference: 16.15 ± 4.51; p < .05). At 90 days, %DS in the aortic BRS was less, and PA BRS LLL was also less than BMS. Histomorphometric data showed greater intimal proliferation and area stenosis in the BRS at all time points and in all vessels. CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated PBBS pediatric BRS has a favorable safety profile in the acute/subacute setting and demonstrates characteristics that are consistent with adult BRSs.
BACKGROUND:Polymer-based bioresorbable scaffolds (PBBS) have been assessed for coronary revascularization with mixed outcomes. Few studies have targeted pediatric-specific scaffolds. We sought to assess safety, efficacy, and short-term performance of a dedicated drug-free PBBS pediatric scaffold compared to a standard low-profile bare metal stent (BMS) in central and peripheral arteries of weaned piglets. METHODS: Forty-two devices (22 Elixir poly-L-lactic-acid-based pediatric bioresorbable scaffolds [BRS] [6 × 18 mm] and 20 control BMS Cook Formula 418 [6 × 20 mm]) were implanted in the descending aorta and pulmonary arteries (PAs) of 14 female Yucatan piglets. Quantitative measurements were collected on the day of device deployment and 30 and 90 days postimplantation to compare device patency and integrity. RESULTS: The BRS has a comparable safety profile to the BMS in the acute setting. Late lumen loss (LLL) and percent diameter stenosis (%DS) were not significantly different between BRS and BMS in the PA at 30 days. LLL and %DS were greater for BRS versus BMS in the aorta at 30 days postimplantation (LLL difference: 0.96 ± 0.26; %DS difference: 16.15 ± 4.51; p < .05). At 90 days, %DS in the aortic BRS was less, and PA BRS LLL was also less than BMS. Histomorphometric data showed greater intimal proliferation and area stenosis in the BRS at all time points and in all vessels. CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated PBBS pediatric BRS has a favorable safety profile in the acute/subacute setting and demonstrates characteristics that are consistent with adult BRSs.
Authors: Surendranath R Veeram Reddy; Tré R Welch; Jian Wang; James A Richardson; Joseph M Forbess; Matthew Riegel; Alan W Nugent Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Vikram S Kashyap; Mircea L Pavkov; Paul D Bishop; Sean P Nassoiy; Matthew J Eagleton; Daniel G Clair; Kenneth Ouriel Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Gregory J Wilson; Gaku Nakazawa; Robert S Schwartz; Barbara Huibregtse; Bradley Poff; Thomas J Herbst; Donald S Baim; Renu Virmani Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-06-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Yohei Sotomi; Yoshinobu Onuma; Carlos Collet; Erhan Tenekecioglu; Renu Virmani; Neal S Kleiman; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Circ Res Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Antonios Karanasos; Cihan Simsek; Muthukarrupan Gnanadesigan; Nienke S van Ditzhuijzen; Raphael Freire; Jouke Dijkstra; Shengxian Tu; Nicolas Van Mieghem; Gijs van Soest; Peter de Jaegere; Patrick W Serruys; Felix Zijlstra; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Evelyn Regar Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Surendranath R Veeram Reddy; Tre R Welch; Jian Wang; Frederic Bernstein; James A Richardson; Joseph M Forbess; Alan W Nugent Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: R S Schwartz; K C Huber; J G Murphy; W D Edwards; A R Camrud; R E Vlietstra; D R Holmes Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1992-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Bill D Gogas; Maria Radu; Yoshinobu Onuma; Laura Perkins; Jennifer C Powers; Josep Gomez-Lara; Vasim Farooq; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Roberto Diletti; Richard Rapoza; Renu Virmani; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-04-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Eliano Pio Navarese; Mariusz Kowalewski; David Kandzari; Alexandra Lansky; Bartosz Górny; Lukasz Kołtowski; Ron Waksman; Sergio Berti; Giuseppe Musumeci; Ugo Limbruno; Rene J van der Schaaf; Malte Kelm; Jacek Kubica; Harry Suryapranata Journal: Open Heart Date: 2014-08-21
Authors: Abhay A Divekar; Yousef M Arar; Stephen Clark; Animesh Tandon; Thomas M Zellers; Surendranath R Veeram Reddy Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-04-02