Vascular response and intrastent thrombus in the early phase after drug-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An observational, single-center study.
acute coronary syndrome
dual antiplatelet therapy
neointimal coverage
optical coherence tomography
Journal
Health science reports
ISSN: 2398-8835
Titre abrégé: Health Sci Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101728855
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
24
06
2018
revised:
03
11
2018
accepted:
06
11
2018
entrez:
31
1
2019
pubmed:
31
1
2019
medline:
31
1
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Second-generation drug-eluting stents (G2-DES) are associated with a lower rate of acute and subacute stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In this study, our aim was to compare the vascular response and thrombus burden between G2-DES and BMS in early-phase STEMI. Between May 2010 and August 2014, a total of 41 STEMI patients treated by either G2-DES (n = 26; everolimus-eluting stent [EES]: n = 15, zotarolimus-eluting stent [ZES]: n = 11) or BMS (n = 15) and, with multivessel disease requiring additional percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), were prospectively enrolled. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging was performed at 1 month after stent implantation. Baseline clinical characteristics, except for age (61.5 ± 9.3 vs 69.3 ± 9.8, Thrombus burden was significantly smaller with DES than with BMS at 1-month follow-up in STEMI cases, although the percentage of malapposed or uncovered struts was similar between the groups. This may partly explain the lower rate of acute and subacute stent thrombosis in G2-DES that has previously been reported in the literature.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Second-generation drug-eluting stents (G2-DES) are associated with a lower rate of acute and subacute stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In this study, our aim was to compare the vascular response and thrombus burden between G2-DES and BMS in early-phase STEMI.
METHODS
METHODS
Between May 2010 and August 2014, a total of 41 STEMI patients treated by either G2-DES (n = 26; everolimus-eluting stent [EES]: n = 15, zotarolimus-eluting stent [ZES]: n = 11) or BMS (n = 15) and, with multivessel disease requiring additional percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), were prospectively enrolled. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging was performed at 1 month after stent implantation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Baseline clinical characteristics, except for age (61.5 ± 9.3 vs 69.3 ± 9.8,
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Thrombus burden was significantly smaller with DES than with BMS at 1-month follow-up in STEMI cases, although the percentage of malapposed or uncovered struts was similar between the groups. This may partly explain the lower rate of acute and subacute stent thrombosis in G2-DES that has previously been reported in the literature.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30697598
doi: 10.1002/hsr2.105
pii: HSR2105
pmc: PMC6346990
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e105Références
Circulation. 2017 Sep 12;136(11):1007-1021
pubmed: 28720725
J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2000;11(7):701-14
pubmed: 11011768
Circulation. 2015 Sep 15;132(11):1020-9
pubmed: 26162917
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Jan 9;7(1):
pubmed: 29317403
Korean J Intern Med. 2012 Mar;27(1):1-12
pubmed: 22403493
Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2013 Dec 1;112:508-12
pubmed: 23972476
J Interv Cardiol. 2018 Jun;31(3):319-329
pubmed: 29285790
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Aug 17;8(9):1157-1165
pubmed: 26210806
Int J Cardiol. 2011 Feb 3;146(3):341-6
pubmed: 19709765
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jun 17;63(23):2510-2520
pubmed: 24768883
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008 Aug 1;72(2):237-47
pubmed: 18655155
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Jan 15;227:161-165
pubmed: 27863292
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Jul 29;52(5):333-42
pubmed: 18652940
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Mar 20;59(12):1058-72
pubmed: 22421299
Circulation. 2011 Apr 5;123(13):1400-9
pubmed: 21422389
Thromb Res. 2000 Sep 15;99(6):577-85
pubmed: 10974344
Lancet. 2012 Oct 27;380(9852):1482-90
pubmed: 22951305
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Jan;5(1):12-20
pubmed: 22230145
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017 Mar 16;17(1):84
pubmed: 28302055
Am J Cardiol. 2006 Jun 15;97(12):1713-7
pubmed: 16765119
Circulation. 2017 Jan 17;135(3):280-296
pubmed: 27821539
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2007 Jul;27(7):1500-10
pubmed: 17510464
Eur Heart J. 2017 Mar 14;38(11):792-800
pubmed: 27578806
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Sep 20;46(6):1002-5
pubmed: 16168282
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 19;9(11):e113399
pubmed: 25409336
Int J Cardiol. 2014 Feb 1;171(2):224-30
pubmed: 24388538
Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2019 Jan;34(1):14-24
pubmed: 29318464
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Jul 31;60(5):381-7
pubmed: 22835668
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Oct 1;92(4):680-691
pubmed: 29214736
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 25;7(1):6385
pubmed: 28743907
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Dec;6(12):1267-74
pubmed: 24355117
Sci Technol Adv Mater. 2012 Oct 18;13(6):064101
pubmed: 27877525
J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2011 Aug;32(2):150-7
pubmed: 21505786
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2000;10(1-2):111-25
pubmed: 10947625
Eur Heart J. 2007 Nov;28(22):2706-13
pubmed: 17901079
Biointerphases. 2016 Jun 15;11(2):029806
pubmed: 27083991
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Aug 17;8(9):1248-1260
pubmed: 26292590
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Dec 11;10(23):2388-2391
pubmed: 29102572
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Oct 16;60(16):1581-98
pubmed: 22958960
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Jul;27(6):875-81
pubmed: 20978851
Circulation. 2014 Jan 14;129(2):211-23
pubmed: 24163064
Health Sci Rep. 2018 Dec 05;2(1):e105
pubmed: 30697598
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Jun;45 Suppl A:A104-15
pubmed: 17544031
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007 Apr;81(1):178-85
pubmed: 17120208