Cargando…

Comparison of 6‐month vascular healing response after bioresorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug‐eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A randomized serial optical coherence tomography study

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to use optical coherence tomography (OCT) to compare vascular healing between bioresorbable polymer (BP) and durable polymer (DP) everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: Whether BP‐EES induce better vascular he...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Noguchi, Masahiko, Dohi, Tomotaka, Okazaki, Shinya, Matsumura, Mitsuaki, Takeuchi, Mitsuhiro, Endo, Hirohisa, Kato, Yoshiteru, Okai, Iwao, Nishiyama, Hiroki, Doi, Shinichiro, Iwata, Hiroshi, Isoda, Kikuo, Usui, Eisuke, Fujimura, Tatsuhiro, Seike, Fumiyasu, Mintz, Gary S., Miyauchi, Katsumi, Daida, Hiroyuki, Minamino, Tohru, Maehara, Akiko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9292175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34357673
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29892
_version_ 1784749307280228352
author Noguchi, Masahiko
Dohi, Tomotaka
Okazaki, Shinya
Matsumura, Mitsuaki
Takeuchi, Mitsuhiro
Endo, Hirohisa
Kato, Yoshiteru
Okai, Iwao
Nishiyama, Hiroki
Doi, Shinichiro
Iwata, Hiroshi
Isoda, Kikuo
Usui, Eisuke
Fujimura, Tatsuhiro
Seike, Fumiyasu
Mintz, Gary S.
Miyauchi, Katsumi
Daida, Hiroyuki
Minamino, Tohru
Maehara, Akiko
author_facet Noguchi, Masahiko
Dohi, Tomotaka
Okazaki, Shinya
Matsumura, Mitsuaki
Takeuchi, Mitsuhiro
Endo, Hirohisa
Kato, Yoshiteru
Okai, Iwao
Nishiyama, Hiroki
Doi, Shinichiro
Iwata, Hiroshi
Isoda, Kikuo
Usui, Eisuke
Fujimura, Tatsuhiro
Seike, Fumiyasu
Mintz, Gary S.
Miyauchi, Katsumi
Daida, Hiroyuki
Minamino, Tohru
Maehara, Akiko
author_sort Noguchi, Masahiko
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to use optical coherence tomography (OCT) to compare vascular healing between bioresorbable polymer (BP) and durable polymer (DP) everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: Whether BP‐EES induce better vascular healing compared to contemporary DP‐EES remains controversial, especially for ACS. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, non‐inferiority trial, we used OCT to compare 6‐month vascular healing in patients with ACS randomized to BP versus DP‐EES: percent strut coverage (primary endpoint, non‐inferiority margin of 2.0%) and neointimal thickness and percent neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) volume. As an exploratory analysis, morphological factors related to the endpoints and the effect of underlying lipidic plaque on stent healing were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients with ACS were randomly assigned to BP‐EES (n = 52) versus DP‐EES (n = 52). Of these, 86 patients (40 BP‐EES and 46 DP‐EES) were included in the final OCT analyses. Six‐month percent strut coverage of BP‐EES (83.6 ± 11.4%) was not non‐inferior compared to those of DP‐EES (81.6 ± 13.9%), difference 2.0% (lower 95% confidence interval‐2.6%), p (non‐inferiority) = 0.07. There were no differences in neointimal thickness 70.0 ± 33.9 μm versus 67.2 ± 33.9 μm, p = 0.71; and percent NIH volume 7.5 ± 4.7% versus 7.3 ± 5.3%, p = 0.85. By multivariable linear regression analysis, stent type was not associated with percent strut coverage or percent NIH volume; however, percent baseline embedded struts or stent expansion was positively associated with percent NIH volume. Greater NIH volume was observed in lipidic compared with non‐lipidic segments (8.7 ± 5.6% vs. 6.1 ± 5.2%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Six‐month strut coverage of BP‐EES was not non‐inferior compared to those of DP‐EES in ACS patients. Good stent apposition and expansion were independently associated with better vascular healing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9292175
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92921752022-07-20 Comparison of 6‐month vascular healing response after bioresorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug‐eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A randomized serial optical coherence tomography study Noguchi, Masahiko Dohi, Tomotaka Okazaki, Shinya Matsumura, Mitsuaki Takeuchi, Mitsuhiro Endo, Hirohisa Kato, Yoshiteru Okai, Iwao Nishiyama, Hiroki Doi, Shinichiro Iwata, Hiroshi Isoda, Kikuo Usui, Eisuke Fujimura, Tatsuhiro Seike, Fumiyasu Mintz, Gary S. Miyauchi, Katsumi Daida, Hiroyuki Minamino, Tohru Maehara, Akiko Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Coronary Artery Disease OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to use optical coherence tomography (OCT) to compare vascular healing between bioresorbable polymer (BP) and durable polymer (DP) everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: Whether BP‐EES induce better vascular healing compared to contemporary DP‐EES remains controversial, especially for ACS. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, non‐inferiority trial, we used OCT to compare 6‐month vascular healing in patients with ACS randomized to BP versus DP‐EES: percent strut coverage (primary endpoint, non‐inferiority margin of 2.0%) and neointimal thickness and percent neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) volume. As an exploratory analysis, morphological factors related to the endpoints and the effect of underlying lipidic plaque on stent healing were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients with ACS were randomly assigned to BP‐EES (n = 52) versus DP‐EES (n = 52). Of these, 86 patients (40 BP‐EES and 46 DP‐EES) were included in the final OCT analyses. Six‐month percent strut coverage of BP‐EES (83.6 ± 11.4%) was not non‐inferior compared to those of DP‐EES (81.6 ± 13.9%), difference 2.0% (lower 95% confidence interval‐2.6%), p (non‐inferiority) = 0.07. There were no differences in neointimal thickness 70.0 ± 33.9 μm versus 67.2 ± 33.9 μm, p = 0.71; and percent NIH volume 7.5 ± 4.7% versus 7.3 ± 5.3%, p = 0.85. By multivariable linear regression analysis, stent type was not associated with percent strut coverage or percent NIH volume; however, percent baseline embedded struts or stent expansion was positively associated with percent NIH volume. Greater NIH volume was observed in lipidic compared with non‐lipidic segments (8.7 ± 5.6% vs. 6.1 ± 5.2%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Six‐month strut coverage of BP‐EES was not non‐inferior compared to those of DP‐EES in ACS patients. Good stent apposition and expansion were independently associated with better vascular healing. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-08-06 2021-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9292175/ /pubmed/34357673 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29892 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Coronary Artery Disease
Noguchi, Masahiko
Dohi, Tomotaka
Okazaki, Shinya
Matsumura, Mitsuaki
Takeuchi, Mitsuhiro
Endo, Hirohisa
Kato, Yoshiteru
Okai, Iwao
Nishiyama, Hiroki
Doi, Shinichiro
Iwata, Hiroshi
Isoda, Kikuo
Usui, Eisuke
Fujimura, Tatsuhiro
Seike, Fumiyasu
Mintz, Gary S.
Miyauchi, Katsumi
Daida, Hiroyuki
Minamino, Tohru
Maehara, Akiko
Comparison of 6‐month vascular healing response after bioresorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug‐eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A randomized serial optical coherence tomography study
title Comparison of 6‐month vascular healing response after bioresorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug‐eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A randomized serial optical coherence tomography study
title_full Comparison of 6‐month vascular healing response after bioresorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug‐eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A randomized serial optical coherence tomography study
title_fullStr Comparison of 6‐month vascular healing response after bioresorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug‐eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A randomized serial optical coherence tomography study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of 6‐month vascular healing response after bioresorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug‐eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A randomized serial optical coherence tomography study
title_short Comparison of 6‐month vascular healing response after bioresorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug‐eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A randomized serial optical coherence tomography study
title_sort comparison of 6‐month vascular healing response after bioresorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug‐eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a randomized serial optical coherence tomography study
topic Coronary Artery Disease
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9292175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34357673
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29892
work_keys_str_mv AT noguchimasahiko comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT dohitomotaka comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT okazakishinya comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT matsumuramitsuaki comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT takeuchimitsuhiro comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT endohirohisa comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT katoyoshiteru comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT okaiiwao comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT nishiyamahiroki comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT doishinichiro comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT iwatahiroshi comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT isodakikuo comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT usuieisuke comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT fujimuratatsuhiro comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT seikefumiyasu comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT mintzgarys comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT miyauchikatsumi comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT daidahiroyuki comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT minaminotohru comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy
AT maeharaakiko comparisonof6monthvascularhealingresponseafterbioresorbablepolymerversusdurablepolymerdrugelutingstentimplantationinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesarandomizedserialopticalcoherencetomographystudy