One-year head to head comparison of the neointimal response between sirolimus eluting stent with reservoir technology and everolimus eluting stent: an optical coherence tomography study
to compare the vascular healing process between the sirolimus-eluting NEVO and the everolimus-eluting Xience stent by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at 1-year follow-up. Presence of durable polymer on a drug-eluting metallic stent may be the basis of an inflammatory reaction with abnormal healin...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2013-10, Vol.82 (4), p.E428-E436 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | E436 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | E428 |
| container_title | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions |
| container_volume | 82 |
| creator | Shiratori, Yoshitaka Brugaletta, Salvatore Alvarez-Contreras, Luis Azpeitia, Yajaziel Ospino, Nestor Gaido, Sebastian Delahanty, Anuar Santos, Alejandro Martin-Yuste, Victoria Masotti, Monica Serruys, Patrick W Windecker, Stephan Sabaté, Manel |
| description | to compare the vascular healing process between the sirolimus-eluting NEVO and the everolimus-eluting Xience stent by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at 1-year follow-up.
Presence of durable polymer on a drug-eluting metallic stent may be the basis of an inflammatory reaction with abnormal healing response. The NEVO stent, having a bioresorbable polymer eluted by reservoir technology, may overcome this problem.
All consecutive patients, who received NEVO or Xience stent implantation between September 2010 and October 2010 in our institution, were included. Vascular healing was assessed at 1-year as percentage of uncovered struts, neointimal thickness (NIT), in-stent/stent area obstruction and pattern of neointima.
A total 47 patients (2:1 randomization, n = 32 NEVO, n = 15 Xience) were included. Eighteen patients underwent angiographic follow-up (eight patients with nine lesions for NEVO vs. 10 patients with 11 lesions for Xience). The angiographic late loss was numerically higher but not statistically different in NEVO compared with Xience treated lesions (0.38 ± 0.47 mm vs. 0.18 ± 0.27 mm; P = 0.171). OCT analysis of 4,912 struts demonstrated similar rates of uncovered struts (0.5 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.462), higher mean NIT (177.76 ± 87.76 µm vs. 132.22 ± 30.91 µm; P = 0.170) and in stent/stent area obstruction (23.02 ± 14.74% vs. 14.17 ± 5.94%, P = 0.120) in the NEVO as compared with Xience.
The NEVO stent with a reservoir technology seems to exhibit more neointimal proliferation as compared to Xience stent. The findings of our study, which currently represent the unique data existing on this reservoir technology, would need to be confirmed in a large population. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ccd.24897 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1438568101</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1438568101</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c245t-31de02f1b1d30c419aa6199d170fda2dc804b83cda310bea546e72cbef24686d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkU1LxDAQhoMofh_8A5KjHqpJms223kT8AmEvCt5Kmky3kTapSar0p_nvzLqrJ08zMM-8M7wvQieUXFBC2KVS-oLxopxvoX06YyybM_G6velpycUeOgjhjRBSClbuoj2Wc06JKPbR18JCNoH0uAWpcXTrqlw_SG-Cs9g1OLaALThjo-llhz2EwdkAuIb4CWBxMN51ph8Dhm6Mxi5xiGAj_jSxXdHgP5zxOIJqrevccsLSagwf8O_aVZpiN0Sj0i3lWvBgFaTXerf0cminhI16OkI7jewCHG_qIXq5u32-ecieFvePN9dPmWJ8FrOcaiCsoTXVOVGcllIKWpaazkmjJdOqILwucqVlTkkNcsYFzJmqoWFcFELnh-hsrTt49z5CiFVvgoKuk8mSMVSU58VMFJTQhJ6vUeVdCB6aavDJMT9VlFSrpKqUVPWTVGJPN7Jj3YP-I3-jyb8BX0eU1Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1438568101</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>One-year head to head comparison of the neointimal response between sirolimus eluting stent with reservoir technology and everolimus eluting stent: an optical coherence tomography study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Shiratori, Yoshitaka ; Brugaletta, Salvatore ; Alvarez-Contreras, Luis ; Azpeitia, Yajaziel ; Ospino, Nestor ; Gaido, Sebastian ; Delahanty, Anuar ; Santos, Alejandro ; Martin-Yuste, Victoria ; Masotti, Monica ; Serruys, Patrick W ; Windecker, Stephan ; Sabaté, Manel</creator><creatorcontrib>Shiratori, Yoshitaka ; Brugaletta, Salvatore ; Alvarez-Contreras, Luis ; Azpeitia, Yajaziel ; Ospino, Nestor ; Gaido, Sebastian ; Delahanty, Anuar ; Santos, Alejandro ; Martin-Yuste, Victoria ; Masotti, Monica ; Serruys, Patrick W ; Windecker, Stephan ; Sabaté, Manel</creatorcontrib><description>to compare the vascular healing process between the sirolimus-eluting NEVO and the everolimus-eluting Xience stent by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at 1-year follow-up.
Presence of durable polymer on a drug-eluting metallic stent may be the basis of an inflammatory reaction with abnormal healing response. The NEVO stent, having a bioresorbable polymer eluted by reservoir technology, may overcome this problem.
All consecutive patients, who received NEVO or Xience stent implantation between September 2010 and October 2010 in our institution, were included. Vascular healing was assessed at 1-year as percentage of uncovered struts, neointimal thickness (NIT), in-stent/stent area obstruction and pattern of neointima.
A total 47 patients (2:1 randomization, n = 32 NEVO, n = 15 Xience) were included. Eighteen patients underwent angiographic follow-up (eight patients with nine lesions for NEVO vs. 10 patients with 11 lesions for Xience). The angiographic late loss was numerically higher but not statistically different in NEVO compared with Xience treated lesions (0.38 ± 0.47 mm vs. 0.18 ± 0.27 mm; P = 0.171). OCT analysis of 4,912 struts demonstrated similar rates of uncovered struts (0.5 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.462), higher mean NIT (177.76 ± 87.76 µm vs. 132.22 ± 30.91 µm; P = 0.170) and in stent/stent area obstruction (23.02 ± 14.74% vs. 14.17 ± 5.94%, P = 0.120) in the NEVO as compared with Xience.
The NEVO stent with a reservoir technology seems to exhibit more neointimal proliferation as compared to Xience stent. The findings of our study, which currently represent the unique data existing on this reservoir technology, would need to be confirmed in a large population.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1522-1946</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-726X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ccd.24897</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23441068</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Aged ; Cardiovascular Agents - administration & dosage ; Cell Proliferation ; Coronary Angiography ; Coronary Artery Disease - diagnosis ; Coronary Artery Disease - therapy ; Coronary Vessels - diagnostic imaging ; Coronary Vessels - drug effects ; Coronary Vessels - pathology ; Drug-Eluting Stents ; Europe ; Everolimus ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neointima ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - adverse effects ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - instrumentation ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Prospective Studies ; Prosthesis Design ; Sirolimus - administration & dosage ; Sirolimus - analogs & derivatives ; Time Factors ; Tomography, Optical Coherence ; Treatment Outcome ; Wound Healing</subject><ispartof>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 2013-10, Vol.82 (4), p.E428-E436</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c245t-31de02f1b1d30c419aa6199d170fda2dc804b83cda310bea546e72cbef24686d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23441068$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shiratori, Yoshitaka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brugaletta, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alvarez-Contreras, Luis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azpeitia, Yajaziel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ospino, Nestor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaido, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delahanty, Anuar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santos, Alejandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin-Yuste, Victoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masotti, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serruys, Patrick W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Windecker, Stephan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sabaté, Manel</creatorcontrib><title>One-year head to head comparison of the neointimal response between sirolimus eluting stent with reservoir technology and everolimus eluting stent: an optical coherence tomography study</title><title>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</title><addtitle>Catheter Cardiovasc Interv</addtitle><description>to compare the vascular healing process between the sirolimus-eluting NEVO and the everolimus-eluting Xience stent by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at 1-year follow-up.
Presence of durable polymer on a drug-eluting metallic stent may be the basis of an inflammatory reaction with abnormal healing response. The NEVO stent, having a bioresorbable polymer eluted by reservoir technology, may overcome this problem.
All consecutive patients, who received NEVO or Xience stent implantation between September 2010 and October 2010 in our institution, were included. Vascular healing was assessed at 1-year as percentage of uncovered struts, neointimal thickness (NIT), in-stent/stent area obstruction and pattern of neointima.
A total 47 patients (2:1 randomization, n = 32 NEVO, n = 15 Xience) were included. Eighteen patients underwent angiographic follow-up (eight patients with nine lesions for NEVO vs. 10 patients with 11 lesions for Xience). The angiographic late loss was numerically higher but not statistically different in NEVO compared with Xience treated lesions (0.38 ± 0.47 mm vs. 0.18 ± 0.27 mm; P = 0.171). OCT analysis of 4,912 struts demonstrated similar rates of uncovered struts (0.5 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.462), higher mean NIT (177.76 ± 87.76 µm vs. 132.22 ± 30.91 µm; P = 0.170) and in stent/stent area obstruction (23.02 ± 14.74% vs. 14.17 ± 5.94%, P = 0.120) in the NEVO as compared with Xience.
The NEVO stent with a reservoir technology seems to exhibit more neointimal proliferation as compared to Xience stent. The findings of our study, which currently represent the unique data existing on this reservoir technology, would need to be confirmed in a large population.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Cardiovascular Agents - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Cell Proliferation</subject><subject>Coronary Angiography</subject><subject>Coronary Artery Disease - diagnosis</subject><subject>Coronary Artery Disease - therapy</subject><subject>Coronary Vessels - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Coronary Vessels - drug effects</subject><subject>Coronary Vessels - pathology</subject><subject>Drug-Eluting Stents</subject><subject>Europe</subject><subject>Everolimus</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neointima</subject><subject>Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - adverse effects</subject><subject>Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - instrumentation</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Sirolimus - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Sirolimus - analogs & derivatives</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Tomography, Optical Coherence</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Wound Healing</subject><issn>1522-1946</issn><issn>1522-726X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNptkU1LxDAQhoMofh_8A5KjHqpJms223kT8AmEvCt5Kmky3kTapSar0p_nvzLqrJ08zMM-8M7wvQieUXFBC2KVS-oLxopxvoX06YyybM_G6velpycUeOgjhjRBSClbuoj2Wc06JKPbR18JCNoH0uAWpcXTrqlw_SG-Cs9g1OLaALThjo-llhz2EwdkAuIb4CWBxMN51ph8Dhm6Mxi5xiGAj_jSxXdHgP5zxOIJqrevccsLSagwf8O_aVZpiN0Sj0i3lWvBgFaTXerf0cminhI16OkI7jewCHG_qIXq5u32-ecieFvePN9dPmWJ8FrOcaiCsoTXVOVGcllIKWpaazkmjJdOqILwucqVlTkkNcsYFzJmqoWFcFELnh-hsrTt49z5CiFVvgoKuk8mSMVSU58VMFJTQhJ6vUeVdCB6aavDJMT9VlFSrpKqUVPWTVGJPN7Jj3YP-I3-jyb8BX0eU1Q</recordid><startdate>20131001</startdate><enddate>20131001</enddate><creator>Shiratori, Yoshitaka</creator><creator>Brugaletta, Salvatore</creator><creator>Alvarez-Contreras, Luis</creator><creator>Azpeitia, Yajaziel</creator><creator>Ospino, Nestor</creator><creator>Gaido, Sebastian</creator><creator>Delahanty, Anuar</creator><creator>Santos, Alejandro</creator><creator>Martin-Yuste, Victoria</creator><creator>Masotti, Monica</creator><creator>Serruys, Patrick W</creator><creator>Windecker, Stephan</creator><creator>Sabaté, Manel</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131001</creationdate><title>One-year head to head comparison of the neointimal response between sirolimus eluting stent with reservoir technology and everolimus eluting stent: an optical coherence tomography study</title><author>Shiratori, Yoshitaka ; Brugaletta, Salvatore ; Alvarez-Contreras, Luis ; Azpeitia, Yajaziel ; Ospino, Nestor ; Gaido, Sebastian ; Delahanty, Anuar ; Santos, Alejandro ; Martin-Yuste, Victoria ; Masotti, Monica ; Serruys, Patrick W ; Windecker, Stephan ; Sabaté, Manel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c245t-31de02f1b1d30c419aa6199d170fda2dc804b83cda310bea546e72cbef24686d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Cardiovascular Agents - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Cell Proliferation</topic><topic>Coronary Angiography</topic><topic>Coronary Artery Disease - diagnosis</topic><topic>Coronary Artery Disease - therapy</topic><topic>Coronary Vessels - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Coronary Vessels - drug effects</topic><topic>Coronary Vessels - pathology</topic><topic>Drug-Eluting Stents</topic><topic>Europe</topic><topic>Everolimus</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neointima</topic><topic>Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - adverse effects</topic><topic>Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - instrumentation</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Sirolimus - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Sirolimus - analogs & derivatives</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Tomography, Optical Coherence</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Wound Healing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shiratori, Yoshitaka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brugaletta, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alvarez-Contreras, Luis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azpeitia, Yajaziel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ospino, Nestor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaido, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delahanty, Anuar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santos, Alejandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin-Yuste, Victoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masotti, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serruys, Patrick W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Windecker, Stephan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sabaté, Manel</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shiratori, Yoshitaka</au><au>Brugaletta, Salvatore</au><au>Alvarez-Contreras, Luis</au><au>Azpeitia, Yajaziel</au><au>Ospino, Nestor</au><au>Gaido, Sebastian</au><au>Delahanty, Anuar</au><au>Santos, Alejandro</au><au>Martin-Yuste, Victoria</au><au>Masotti, Monica</au><au>Serruys, Patrick W</au><au>Windecker, Stephan</au><au>Sabaté, Manel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>One-year head to head comparison of the neointimal response between sirolimus eluting stent with reservoir technology and everolimus eluting stent: an optical coherence tomography study</atitle><jtitle>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</jtitle><addtitle>Catheter Cardiovasc Interv</addtitle><date>2013-10-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>82</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>E428</spage><epage>E436</epage><pages>E428-E436</pages><issn>1522-1946</issn><eissn>1522-726X</eissn><abstract>to compare the vascular healing process between the sirolimus-eluting NEVO and the everolimus-eluting Xience stent by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at 1-year follow-up.
Presence of durable polymer on a drug-eluting metallic stent may be the basis of an inflammatory reaction with abnormal healing response. The NEVO stent, having a bioresorbable polymer eluted by reservoir technology, may overcome this problem.
All consecutive patients, who received NEVO or Xience stent implantation between September 2010 and October 2010 in our institution, were included. Vascular healing was assessed at 1-year as percentage of uncovered struts, neointimal thickness (NIT), in-stent/stent area obstruction and pattern of neointima.
A total 47 patients (2:1 randomization, n = 32 NEVO, n = 15 Xience) were included. Eighteen patients underwent angiographic follow-up (eight patients with nine lesions for NEVO vs. 10 patients with 11 lesions for Xience). The angiographic late loss was numerically higher but not statistically different in NEVO compared with Xience treated lesions (0.38 ± 0.47 mm vs. 0.18 ± 0.27 mm; P = 0.171). OCT analysis of 4,912 struts demonstrated similar rates of uncovered struts (0.5 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.462), higher mean NIT (177.76 ± 87.76 µm vs. 132.22 ± 30.91 µm; P = 0.170) and in stent/stent area obstruction (23.02 ± 14.74% vs. 14.17 ± 5.94%, P = 0.120) in the NEVO as compared with Xience.
The NEVO stent with a reservoir technology seems to exhibit more neointimal proliferation as compared to Xience stent. The findings of our study, which currently represent the unique data existing on this reservoir technology, would need to be confirmed in a large population.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>23441068</pmid><doi>10.1002/ccd.24897</doi></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1522-1946 |
| ispartof | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 2013-10, Vol.82 (4), p.E428-E436 |
| issn | 1522-1946 1522-726X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1438568101 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Aged Cardiovascular Agents - administration & dosage Cell Proliferation Coronary Angiography Coronary Artery Disease - diagnosis Coronary Artery Disease - therapy Coronary Vessels - diagnostic imaging Coronary Vessels - drug effects Coronary Vessels - pathology Drug-Eluting Stents Europe Everolimus Female Humans Male Middle Aged Neointima Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - adverse effects Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - instrumentation Predictive Value of Tests Prospective Studies Prosthesis Design Sirolimus - administration & dosage Sirolimus - analogs & derivatives Time Factors Tomography, Optical Coherence Treatment Outcome Wound Healing |
| title | One-year head to head comparison of the neointimal response between sirolimus eluting stent with reservoir technology and everolimus eluting stent: an optical coherence tomography study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T01%3A18%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=One-year%20head%20to%20head%20comparison%20of%20the%20neointimal%20response%20between%20sirolimus%20eluting%20stent%20with%20reservoir%20technology%20and%20everolimus%20eluting%20stent:%20an%20optical%20coherence%20tomography%20study&rft.jtitle=Catheterization%20and%20cardiovascular%20interventions&rft.au=Shiratori,%20Yoshitaka&rft.date=2013-10-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=E428&rft.epage=E436&rft.pages=E428-E436&rft.issn=1522-1946&rft.eissn=1522-726X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ccd.24897&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1438568101%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1438568101&rft_id=info:pmid/23441068&rfr_iscdi=true |