Swiss medical weekly · 2016
Vascular response to everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents versus everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds--an optical coherence tomography substudy of the EVERBIO II trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kallinikou Zacharenia, Arroyo Diego, Togni Mario, Lehman Sonja, Corpataux Noé, Cook Malica, Müller Olivier, Baeriswyl Gérard, Stauffer Jean-Christophe, Goy Jean-Jacques, Puricel Serban-George, Cook Stéphane
Аннотация
QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: Head-to-head optical coherence tomography (OCT) data comparing metallic stents with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) are lacking. This study assessed vascular healing at 9-month follow-up after implantation of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting stents (EES; BES) and everolimus-eluting BVS.
METHODS: OCT was performed in 74 patients enrolled in the EVERBIO II (NCT01711931) trial (23 with EES: 26 lesions, 7 625 struts; 23 with BES: 26 lesions, 6 140 struts; 28 with BVS: 33 lesions, 10 891 struts). OCT images were acquired using the pullback and nonocclusive flushing technique and analysed offline.
RESULTS: BVS demonstrated fewer uncovered struts per patient (12 ± 27 [3.8 ± 8.4%] vs 59 ± 55 [21.8 ± 13.7%] in the EES&BES group, p <0.001), and thicker neointimal hyperplasia (BVS 102 ± 44 µm vs EES&BES 66 ± 36 µm, p <0.01). There was no significant difference with regard to malapposed struts (2.1 ± 2.7% in the BVS vs 4.4 ± 8.8% in the EES&BES group, p = 0.41). In a predefined signal intensity scale, quantitative analysis of the "key component" (black) revealed lower intensity in BVS than EES&BES (14 ± 23% vs 13 ± 12%, p = 0.007). Intensity was lower in polylactide-containing stents (BVS&BES) than in EES (15 ± 19% vs 10 ± 10%, p <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: BVS has fewer uncovered struts and presents with a thicker neointimal coverage compared with EES&BES. It is not known whether this improved capping correlates with superior vascular healing. Polylactide-containing stents (BVS and BES) demonstrate lower peristrut intensity compared with EES.
METHODS: OCT was performed in 74 patients enrolled in the EVERBIO II (NCT01711931) trial (23 with EES: 26 lesions, 7 625 struts; 23 with BES: 26 lesions, 6 140 struts; 28 with BVS: 33 lesions, 10 891 struts). OCT images were acquired using the pullback and nonocclusive flushing technique and analysed offline.
RESULTS: BVS demonstrated fewer uncovered struts per patient (12 ± 27 [3.8 ± 8.4%] vs 59 ± 55 [21.8 ± 13.7%] in the EES&BES group, p <0.001), and thicker neointimal hyperplasia (BVS 102 ± 44 µm vs EES&BES 66 ± 36 µm, p <0.01). There was no significant difference with regard to malapposed struts (2.1 ± 2.7% in the BVS vs 4.4 ± 8.8% in the EES&BES group, p = 0.41). In a predefined signal intensity scale, quantitative analysis of the "key component" (black) revealed lower intensity in BVS than EES&BES (14 ± 23% vs 13 ± 12%, p = 0.007). Intensity was lower in polylactide-containing stents (BVS&BES) than in EES (15 ± 19% vs 10 ± 10%, p <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: BVS has fewer uncovered struts and presents with a thicker neointimal coverage compared with EES&BES. It is not known whether this improved capping correlates with superior vascular healing. Polylactide-containing stents (BVS and BES) demonstrate lower peristrut intensity compared with EES.