A Randomized Comparison of the Healing Response Between the Firehawk Stent and the Xience Stent in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction at 6 Months of Follow-Up (TARGET STEMI OCT China Trial): An Optical Coherence Tomography Study

BackgroundThe healing response of the Firehawk stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unclear. AimWe compared the vascular healing of a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (Firehawk) vs. a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (Xience) at 6 mon...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 2022-06, Vol.9, p.895167-895167
Hauptverfasser: He, Yuan, Wang, Rutao, Liu, Jianzheng, Li, Fei, Li, Jiayi, Li, Chengxiang, Zhou, Jingyu, Zhao, Zhijing, Yang, Wangwei, Mou, Fangjun, Wang, Jing, Kan, Jing, Li, Xiaobo, Li, Yan, Zheng, Ming, Chen, Shaoliang, Gao, Chao, Tao, Ling
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:BackgroundThe healing response of the Firehawk stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unclear. AimWe compared the vascular healing of a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (Firehawk) vs. a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (Xience) at 6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with STEMI. MethodsIn this prospective, multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study, patients within 12 h of STEMI onset were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to receive Firehawk or Xience stents. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) follow-up was performed 6 months after the index procedure and assessed frame by frame. The primary endpoint was the neointimal thickness (NIT) at 6 months evaluated by OCT. The safety endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months. ResultsThe Firehawk stent was non-inferior to the Xience stent in terms of the neointimal thickness (73.03 ± 33.30 μm vs. 78.96 ± 33.29 μm; absolute difference: -5.94 [one-sided 95% lower confidence bound: -23.09]; P non-inferiority < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the Firehawk and Xience groups regarding the percentage of uncovered struts (0.55 [0.08, 1.32]% vs. 0.40 [0.21, 1.19]%, P = 0.804), the percentage of malapposed struts (0.17 [0.00, 1.52]% vs. 0.17 [0.00, 0.69]%, P = 0.662), and the healing score (1.56 [0.23, 5.74] vs. 2.12 [0.91, 3.81], P = 0.647). At 12 months, one patient in the Firehawk group experienced a clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. No other TLF events occurred in both groups. Independent risk factors of the NIT included body mass index, hyperlipidemia, B2/C lesions, thrombus G3-G5, thrombus aspiration, and postdilation pressure. ConclusionIn patients with STEMI, Firehawk was non-inferior to Xience in vascular healing at 6 months. Both stents exhibited nearly complete strut coverage, moderate neointimal formation, and minimal strut malapposition. Clinical Trial NumberNCT04150016.
ISSN:2297-055X
2297-055X
DOI:10.3389/fcvm.2022.895167