Resposta vascular após implante de stents liberadores de biolimus A9 com polímero bioabsorvível e stents liberadores de everolimus com polímero durável. Resultados da análise de tomografia de coerência óptica do estudo randomizado BIOACTIVE

Daniel Chamié , Breno O. Almeida , Fábio Grandi , Evandro M. Filho , J. Ribamar Costa Jr. , Ricardo Costa , Rodolfo Staico , Dimytri Siqueira , Fausto Feres , Luiz Fernando Tanajura , Marinella Centemero , Áurea J. Chaves , Andrea Abizaid , Amanda G.M.R. Sousa , Alexandre Abizaid
{"title":"Resposta vascular após implante de stents liberadores de biolimus A9 com polímero bioabsorvível e stents liberadores de everolimus com polímero durável. Resultados da análise de tomografia de coerência óptica do estudo randomizado BIOACTIVE","authors":"Daniel Chamié ,&nbsp;Breno O. Almeida ,&nbsp;Fábio Grandi ,&nbsp;Evandro M. Filho ,&nbsp;J. Ribamar Costa Jr. ,&nbsp;Ricardo Costa ,&nbsp;Rodolfo Staico ,&nbsp;Dimytri Siqueira ,&nbsp;Fausto Feres ,&nbsp;Luiz Fernando Tanajura ,&nbsp;Marinella Centemero ,&nbsp;Áurea J. Chaves ,&nbsp;Andrea Abizaid ,&nbsp;Amanda G.M.R. Sousa ,&nbsp;Alexandre Abizaid","doi":"10.1016/j.rbci.2015.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>In BIOACTIVE study, we evaluated vascular responses after the implant of biolimus A9‐eluting stent (BES; BioMatrix<sup>TM</sup>) and the everolimus‐eluting stent (EES; XIENCE V<sup>TM</sup>). In this study, we present the optical coherence tomography analysis (OCT) 6 months post‐intervention.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Patients were randomized to treatment with BES (n = 22) or EES (n = 18). The primary outcome was the frequency of non‐covered, poorly positioned struts by OCT.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>OCT was performed in 26 patients (BES: n = 15; EES: n = 11) and 749 tomographic images and 7,725 stent struts were analyzed. BES and EES showed similar luminal and stent areas. Neointimal hyperplasia area, neointimal thickness and the percentage of in‐stent obstruction (8.44 ± 5.10% vs. 9.21 ± 6.36%; <em>p</em> = 0.74) were similar. The rates of not covered struts (BES: 2.10 ± 3.60% vs. ESS: 2.46 ± 2.15%, <em>p</em> = 0.77) and poorly positioned struts (BES: 0.48 ± 1.48% vs. EES 0.44 ± 1.05%, <em>p</em> = 0.94) were similarly low. The frequency of frames with signs consistent with peri‐strut inflammatory infiltrate was low and similar between BES (15.53 ± 20.77%) and EES (11.70 ± 27.51%; <em>p</em> = 0.68).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The second‐generation drug‐eluting stents BES and EES were equally effective at suppressing the neointimal formation after 6 months, with favorable vascular responses. The frequency of frames with peri‐strut infiltrate signals per patient was low, and lower than that observed historically with first‐generation drug‐eluting stents.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101093,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva","volume":"23 1","pages":"Pages 28-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rbci.2015.02.001","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0104184315000090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background

In BIOACTIVE study, we evaluated vascular responses after the implant of biolimus A9‐eluting stent (BES; BioMatrixTM) and the everolimus‐eluting stent (EES; XIENCE VTM). In this study, we present the optical coherence tomography analysis (OCT) 6 months post‐intervention.

Methods

Patients were randomized to treatment with BES (n = 22) or EES (n = 18). The primary outcome was the frequency of non‐covered, poorly positioned struts by OCT.

Results

OCT was performed in 26 patients (BES: n = 15; EES: n = 11) and 749 tomographic images and 7,725 stent struts were analyzed. BES and EES showed similar luminal and stent areas. Neointimal hyperplasia area, neointimal thickness and the percentage of in‐stent obstruction (8.44 ± 5.10% vs. 9.21 ± 6.36%; p = 0.74) were similar. The rates of not covered struts (BES: 2.10 ± 3.60% vs. ESS: 2.46 ± 2.15%, p = 0.77) and poorly positioned struts (BES: 0.48 ± 1.48% vs. EES 0.44 ± 1.05%, p = 0.94) were similarly low. The frequency of frames with signs consistent with peri‐strut inflammatory infiltrate was low and similar between BES (15.53 ± 20.77%) and EES (11.70 ± 27.51%; p = 0.68).

Conclusions

The second‐generation drug‐eluting stents BES and EES were equally effective at suppressing the neointimal formation after 6 months, with favorable vascular responses. The frequency of frames with peri‐strut infiltrate signals per patient was low, and lower than that observed historically with first‐generation drug‐eluting stents.

生物可吸收聚合物和耐用聚合物依维莫司释放支架植入后的血管反应。生物活性随机研究光学相干断层扫描分析结果
在BIOACTIVE研究中,我们评估了生物泥A9洗脱支架(BES;BioMatrixTM)和依维莫司洗脱支架(EES;XIENCE VTM)。在这项研究中,我们展示了干预后6个月的光学相干断层扫描分析(OCT)。方法随机分为BES组(22例)和EES组(18例)。主要观察指标为oct检测未覆盖、定位不良支撑物的频率。结果26例患者(BES: n = 15;EES: n = 11), 749张断层图像和7725支支架进行了分析。BES和EES显示相似的管腔和支架面积。内膜增生面积、内膜厚度和支架内梗阻百分比(8.44±5.10% vs. 9.21±6.36%;P = 0.74)相似。未覆盖支撑物的比例(BES: 2.10±3.60% vs. ESS: 2.46±2.15%,p = 0.77)和支撑物定位不良的比例(BES: 0.48±1.48% vs. EES: 0.44±1.05%,p = 0.94)也同样低。在BES(15.53±20.77%)和EES(11.70±27.51%)之间,伴有支架周围炎症浸润征象的帧的频率较低且相似;P = 0.68)。结论第二代药物洗脱支架BES和EES在6个月后抑制新生内膜形成的效果相同,血管反应良好。每位患者出现支架周围浸润信号的频率较低,低于第一代药物洗脱支架的历史观察值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信