JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2017
Effect of Post-Dilatation Following Primary PCI With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent Implantation: An Angiographic and Optical Coherence Tomography TROFI II Substudy.
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.
Yamaji Kyohei, Brugaletta Salvatore, Sabaté Manel, Iñiguez Andrés, Jensen Lisette Okkels, Cequier Angel, Hofma Sjoerd H, Christiansen Evald Høj, Suttorp Maarten, van Es Gerrit Anne, Sotomi Yohei, Onuma Yoshinobu, Serruys Patrick W, Windecker Stephan, Räber Lorenz
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the effect of post-dilatation on angiographic and intracoronary imaging parameters in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention comparing the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES).
BACKGROUND: Routine post-dilatation of BRS has been suggested to improve post-procedural angiographic and subsequent device-related clinical outcomes.
METHODS: In the ABSORB STEMI TROFI II trial, 191 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to treatment with BRS (n = 95) or EES (n = 96). Minimal lumen area and healing score as assessed by optical coherence tomography at 6 months were compared between BRS- and EES-treated patients stratified according to post-dilatation status.
RESULTS: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention with post-dilatation was performed in 48 (50.5%) BRS- and 25 (25.5%) EES-treated lesions. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and post-procedural minimal lumen diameter between groups. In the BRS group, lesions with post-dilatation were associated with a trend toward a smaller minimal lumen area at 6 months (5.07 ± 1.68 mm2 vs. 5.72 ± 1.77 mm2; p = 0.09) and significantly larger angiographic late lumen loss (0.28 ± 0.34 mm vs. 0.12 ± 0.25 mm; p = 0.02), whereas no difference was observed in the EES arm (5.46 ± 2.18 mm2 vs. 5.55 ± 1.77 mm2; p = 0.85). The neointimal healing score was low and comparable between groups with and without post-dilation (BRS: 1.55 ± 2.61 vs. 1.92 ± 2.17; p = 0.48; EES: 2.50 ± 3.33 vs. 2.90 ± 4.80; p = 0.72).
CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of selected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with BRS or EES, post-dilatation did not translate into larger lumen area or improved arterial healing at follow-up. (ABSORB STEMI: The TROFI II; NCT01986803).
BACKGROUND: Routine post-dilatation of BRS has been suggested to improve post-procedural angiographic and subsequent device-related clinical outcomes.
METHODS: In the ABSORB STEMI TROFI II trial, 191 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to treatment with BRS (n = 95) or EES (n = 96). Minimal lumen area and healing score as assessed by optical coherence tomography at 6 months were compared between BRS- and EES-treated patients stratified according to post-dilatation status.
RESULTS: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention with post-dilatation was performed in 48 (50.5%) BRS- and 25 (25.5%) EES-treated lesions. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and post-procedural minimal lumen diameter between groups. In the BRS group, lesions with post-dilatation were associated with a trend toward a smaller minimal lumen area at 6 months (5.07 ± 1.68 mm2 vs. 5.72 ± 1.77 mm2; p = 0.09) and significantly larger angiographic late lumen loss (0.28 ± 0.34 mm vs. 0.12 ± 0.25 mm; p = 0.02), whereas no difference was observed in the EES arm (5.46 ± 2.18 mm2 vs. 5.55 ± 1.77 mm2; p = 0.85). The neointimal healing score was low and comparable between groups with and without post-dilation (BRS: 1.55 ± 2.61 vs. 1.92 ± 2.17; p = 0.48; EES: 2.50 ± 3.33 vs. 2.90 ± 4.80; p = 0.72).
CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of selected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with BRS or EES, post-dilatation did not translate into larger lumen area or improved arterial healing at follow-up. (ABSORB STEMI: The TROFI II; NCT01986803).
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Absorbable ImplantsAgedCardiovascular AgentsCoated Materials, BiocompatibleCoronary AngiographyCoronary RestenosisCoronary VesselsDrug-Eluting StentsEuropeEverolimusFemaleHumansMaleMetalsMiddle AgedPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignRisk FactorsST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionSingle-Blind MethodTime FactorsTomography, Optical CoherenceTreatment OutcomeWound Healing