These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Optical coherence tomography evaluation of late strut coverage patterns between first-generation drug-eluting stents and everolimus-eluting stent.
    Author: Toledano Delgado FJ, Alvarez-Ossorio MP, de Lezo Cruz-Conde JS, Bellido FM, Romero Moreno MÁ, Fernández-Aceytuno AM, de Lezo Herrerosde Tejada JS, Pineda SO, Saint-Gerons JM, Pavlovic D.
    Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2014 Nov 01; 84(5):720-6. PubMed ID: 24174291.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To compare strut coverage patterns between everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) at more than 12 months after successful implantation, using optical coherence tomography (OCT). BACKGROUND: No sufficient OCT data has been reported comparing late strut coverage patterns between EES and first-generation DES. The favorable late results after EES implantation could be related to lower rates of uncovered and malapposed struts. METHODS: A total of 66 DES (21 EES, 23 SES, and 22 PES) that were implanted at least 1 year in advance in 40 patients and met good late angiographic results were evaluated by OCT. The percentage of uncovered and malapposed struts, calculated as the ratio of uncovered or malapposed struts to total struts in all cross-sectional images per stent, was compared among the three groups. RESULTS: A total of 35,061 struts were analyzed: 11,967 from EES, 11,855 from SES, and 11m239 from PES. The average tissue coverage thickness of the struts per stent was greater in EES than in SES and PES (109 ± 40 µm vs. 72 ± 27 µm and 83 ± 26 µm, respectively; P = 0.001). The percentage of uncovered struts (1.9 ± 4.1% in EES vs. 11.6 ± 12.7% in SES, P = 0.01 and vs. 7.1 ± 5.2% in PES, P < 0.001) and malapposed struts (0.1 ± 0.3% in EES vs. 1.8 ± 3.5% in SES, P = 0.01 and vs. 3.5 ± 5.1% in PES, P = 0.02) was much lower in EES than in first-generation DES, with no significant differences between SES and PES. CONCLUSIONS: Late strut coverage patterns are not similar between EES and first-generation DES. EES showed a lower percentage of uncovered and malapposed struts.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]