JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2017
The REMEDEE-OCT Study: An Evaluation of the Bioengineered COMBO Dual-Therapy CD34 Antibody-Covered Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent Compared With a Cobalt-Chromium Everolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From Optical Coherence Tomography Imaging Analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jaguszewski Milosz, Aloysius Romila, Wang Wei, Bezerra Hiram G, Hill Jonathan, De Winter Robbert J, Karjalainen Pasi P, Verheye Stefan, Wijns William, Lüscher Thomas F, Joner Michael, Costa Marco, Landmesser Ulf
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate vascular healing of the bioengineered COMBO Dual Therapy Stent compared with a cobalt-chromium (CoCr) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) as assessed by optical coherence tomography in patients with acute coronary syndromes.
BACKGROUND: CD34+ cells promote endothelial repair after vascular injury. The bioengineered COMBO Dual Therapy Stent combines CD34+ cell-capturing technology with abluminal sirolimus release, but more data from clinical studies evaluating the vascular response are needed.
METHODS: In a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial, 60 patients with acute coronary syndromes were randomized 1:1 to COMBO or CoCr EES implantation. The primary endpoint was the percentage of uncovered stent struts per stent. Stent assessment by optical coherence tomography was performed at baseline and at 60 days, followed by independent core laboratory analysis.
RESULTS: The percentage of uncovered struts per stent was higher with the COMBO than the CoCr EES at 60 days (median 14.7% vs. 7.7%; p = 0.04). However, no significant difference in uncovered stent struts was observed in the strut level-based analysis at 60 days, which also accounted for clustering (COMBO vs. CoCr EES; 13.6% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.09; generalized linear mixed models-adjusted analysis). Neointimal thickness at 60 days was lower with the COMBO compared with the CoCr EES (median 30.17 vs. 50.26 μm; p = 0.02; stent-level analysis). There were no significant differences in the frequency of major adverse cardiac events and each component of major adverse cardiac events within the study population between the 2 groups at 30, 60, 180, 360, and 540 days post-procedure. No target vessel stent thrombosis has been documented within 540 days.
CONCLUSIONS: The present multicenter, prospective clinical study for the first time compared the vascular response of the bioengineered COMBO Dual Therapy Stent with a CoCr EES in patients early after acute coronary syndrome by using intracoronary optical coherence tomographic analysis. The percentage of uncovered stent struts per stent was somewhat higher after COMBO versus CoCr EES implantation as detected by optical coherence tomography, associated with reduced neointimal thickness.
BACKGROUND: CD34+ cells promote endothelial repair after vascular injury. The bioengineered COMBO Dual Therapy Stent combines CD34+ cell-capturing technology with abluminal sirolimus release, but more data from clinical studies evaluating the vascular response are needed.
METHODS: In a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial, 60 patients with acute coronary syndromes were randomized 1:1 to COMBO or CoCr EES implantation. The primary endpoint was the percentage of uncovered stent struts per stent. Stent assessment by optical coherence tomography was performed at baseline and at 60 days, followed by independent core laboratory analysis.
RESULTS: The percentage of uncovered struts per stent was higher with the COMBO than the CoCr EES at 60 days (median 14.7% vs. 7.7%; p = 0.04). However, no significant difference in uncovered stent struts was observed in the strut level-based analysis at 60 days, which also accounted for clustering (COMBO vs. CoCr EES; 13.6% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.09; generalized linear mixed models-adjusted analysis). Neointimal thickness at 60 days was lower with the COMBO compared with the CoCr EES (median 30.17 vs. 50.26 μm; p = 0.02; stent-level analysis). There were no significant differences in the frequency of major adverse cardiac events and each component of major adverse cardiac events within the study population between the 2 groups at 30, 60, 180, 360, and 540 days post-procedure. No target vessel stent thrombosis has been documented within 540 days.
CONCLUSIONS: The present multicenter, prospective clinical study for the first time compared the vascular response of the bioengineered COMBO Dual Therapy Stent with a CoCr EES in patients early after acute coronary syndrome by using intracoronary optical coherence tomographic analysis. The percentage of uncovered stent struts per stent was somewhat higher after COMBO versus CoCr EES implantation as detected by optical coherence tomography, associated with reduced neointimal thickness.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Acute Coronary SyndromeAgedAntibodiesAntigens, CD34Cardiovascular AgentsChromium AlloysCoronary VesselsDrug-Eluting StentsEndothelial CellsEuropeEverolimusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeointimaPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignSirolimusTime FactorsTomography, Optical CoherenceTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesWound Healing