Cargando…

Comparison of neointimal coverage between ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents: 6 months optical coherence tomography follow‐up from the TAXCO study

AIM: The TAXCO study was designed to compare the degree of neointimal coverage and the prevalence of malapposition at 6 months subsequent to implantation of ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) of thin strut...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abhyankar, Atul, Abizaid, Alexandre, Chamié, Daniel, Rathod, Mihir
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984091/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32243050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28833
_version_ 1783668003765747712
author Abhyankar, Atul
Abizaid, Alexandre
Chamié, Daniel
Rathod, Mihir
author_facet Abhyankar, Atul
Abizaid, Alexandre
Chamié, Daniel
Rathod, Mihir
author_sort Abhyankar, Atul
collection PubMed
description AIM: The TAXCO study was designed to compare the degree of neointimal coverage and the prevalence of malapposition at 6 months subsequent to implantation of ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) of thin strut thickness using optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS: The TAXCO study included a total of 42 patients who gave consent and underwent OCT examination between August 2017 and September 2017. Of 42, five patients' OCT examinations were of insufficient quality for quantitative analysis. Thus, the OCT analysis group consisted of 37 patients. Among them, 16 patients were treated with Xience (Abbott Vascular) and 21 with Tetriflex (Sahajanand Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Surat, India), 6 (±1) months earlier at our institution. The OCT was performed using a C7 Dragonfly™ imaging catheter (St. Jude Medical Inc.). All OCT images were analyzed at an independent core laboratory (Cardiovascular Research Center, São Paulo, Brazil) by analysts who were blinded to patient and procedural information. RESULTS: A total of 763 crosssections (6,882 struts) were analyzed in Xience group, and 1,127 crosssections (9,968 struts) in Tetriflex group. At 6 months, on per‐lesion basis, no significant differences were observed between Xience group and Tetriflex group in mean percentage of uncovered struts (1.87 ± 3.86 vs. 2.42 ± 3.46, p = .137) and malapposed struts (0.05 ± 0.2 vs. 0.21 ± 0.69, p = .302). Strut‐level neointimal thickness also did not differ between Xience group and Tetriflex group (0.18 ± 0.12 vs. 0.14 ± 0.08 mm, p = .286). CONCLUSION: This OCT study found no significant difference in strut coverage and neointimal thickness at 6 months after implantation of biodegradable polymer‐coated Tetriflex, when compared with durable polymer‐coated Xience.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7984091
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79840912021-03-24 Comparison of neointimal coverage between ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents: 6 months optical coherence tomography follow‐up from the TAXCO study Abhyankar, Atul Abizaid, Alexandre Chamié, Daniel Rathod, Mihir Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Coronary Artery Disease AIM: The TAXCO study was designed to compare the degree of neointimal coverage and the prevalence of malapposition at 6 months subsequent to implantation of ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) of thin strut thickness using optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS: The TAXCO study included a total of 42 patients who gave consent and underwent OCT examination between August 2017 and September 2017. Of 42, five patients' OCT examinations were of insufficient quality for quantitative analysis. Thus, the OCT analysis group consisted of 37 patients. Among them, 16 patients were treated with Xience (Abbott Vascular) and 21 with Tetriflex (Sahajanand Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Surat, India), 6 (±1) months earlier at our institution. The OCT was performed using a C7 Dragonfly™ imaging catheter (St. Jude Medical Inc.). All OCT images were analyzed at an independent core laboratory (Cardiovascular Research Center, São Paulo, Brazil) by analysts who were blinded to patient and procedural information. RESULTS: A total of 763 crosssections (6,882 struts) were analyzed in Xience group, and 1,127 crosssections (9,968 struts) in Tetriflex group. At 6 months, on per‐lesion basis, no significant differences were observed between Xience group and Tetriflex group in mean percentage of uncovered struts (1.87 ± 3.86 vs. 2.42 ± 3.46, p = .137) and malapposed struts (0.05 ± 0.2 vs. 0.21 ± 0.69, p = .302). Strut‐level neointimal thickness also did not differ between Xience group and Tetriflex group (0.18 ± 0.12 vs. 0.14 ± 0.08 mm, p = .286). CONCLUSION: This OCT study found no significant difference in strut coverage and neointimal thickness at 6 months after implantation of biodegradable polymer‐coated Tetriflex, when compared with durable polymer‐coated Xience. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020-04-03 2021-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7984091/ /pubmed/32243050 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28833 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Coronary Artery Disease
Abhyankar, Atul
Abizaid, Alexandre
Chamié, Daniel
Rathod, Mihir
Comparison of neointimal coverage between ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents: 6 months optical coherence tomography follow‐up from the TAXCO study
title Comparison of neointimal coverage between ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents: 6 months optical coherence tomography follow‐up from the TAXCO study
title_full Comparison of neointimal coverage between ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents: 6 months optical coherence tomography follow‐up from the TAXCO study
title_fullStr Comparison of neointimal coverage between ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents: 6 months optical coherence tomography follow‐up from the TAXCO study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of neointimal coverage between ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents: 6 months optical coherence tomography follow‐up from the TAXCO study
title_short Comparison of neointimal coverage between ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents: 6 months optical coherence tomography follow‐up from the TAXCO study
title_sort comparison of neointimal coverage between ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents: 6 months optical coherence tomography follow‐up from the taxco study
topic Coronary Artery Disease
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984091/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32243050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28833
work_keys_str_mv AT abhyankaratul comparisonofneointimalcoveragebetweenultrathinbiodegradablepolymercoatedsirolimuselutingstentsanddurablepolymercoatedeverolimuselutingstents6monthsopticalcoherencetomographyfollowupfromthetaxcostudy
AT abizaidalexandre comparisonofneointimalcoveragebetweenultrathinbiodegradablepolymercoatedsirolimuselutingstentsanddurablepolymercoatedeverolimuselutingstents6monthsopticalcoherencetomographyfollowupfromthetaxcostudy
AT chamiedaniel comparisonofneointimalcoveragebetweenultrathinbiodegradablepolymercoatedsirolimuselutingstentsanddurablepolymercoatedeverolimuselutingstents6monthsopticalcoherencetomographyfollowupfromthetaxcostudy
AT rathodmihir comparisonofneointimalcoveragebetweenultrathinbiodegradablepolymercoatedsirolimuselutingstentsanddurablepolymercoatedeverolimuselutingstents6monthsopticalcoherencetomographyfollowupfromthetaxcostudy