Efficacy and safety of a novel nano-porous polymer-free sirolimus- eluting stent in pigs
Background Drug-eluting stents represent a major advance in interventional cardiology. However, the current drug- eluting stents have significant limitations. One of the major problems is very late stent thrombosis, which is likely caused by inflammation and a hypersensitivity reaction related to a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Chinese medical journal 2013-12, Vol.126 (24), p.4731-4735 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background Drug-eluting stents represent a major advance in interventional cardiology. However, the current drug- eluting stents have significant limitations. One of the major problems is very late stent thrombosis, which is likely caused by inflammation and a hypersensitivity reaction related to a polymer on the stent. A polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent with a unique nano-porous surface has been developed. This study aimed to evaluate this novel polymer-free sirolimus- eluting stent for its efficacy and safety in a pig model. Methods Stents were directly coated with sirolimus (a drug concentration of 2.2 μg/mm2 on the stent surface). The polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents (PFSES) were compared to standard polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents (PCSES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in 18 pigs. Results At one month the degree of neointimal hyperplasia was similar between the two sirolimus-eluting stent groups and was significantly less compared to BMS ((1.93±0.51) mm2, (1.57±0.69) mm2 vs. (4.45±1.05) mm2, P 〈0.05)At three months, PFSES maintained the low level of neointima ((2.41±0.99) mm2 vs. (4.32±1.16) mm2, P 〈0.05), whereas PCSES had developed significant neointimal proliferation similar to BMS. The inflammation level was significantly higher in PCSES when compared with BMS three months post-implantation (2.50±0.55 vs. 0.83±0.75, P 〈0.05) whereas PFSES showed a low level of inflammation comparable to PCSES (1.33±0.52 vs. 2.50±0.55, P 〈0.05). Conclusion The PFSES is effective and safe. and appears to be suoerior to standard PCSEs. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0366-6999 2542-5641 |
DOI: | 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20123267 |