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 , 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","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.