Adriaenssens Tom, Ughi Giovanni J, Dubois Christophe, De Cock Dries, Onsea Kevin, Bennett Johan, Wiyono Stefanus, Sinnaeve Peter, Coosemans Mark, Ferdinande Bert, Belmans Ann, D'hooge Jan, Desmet Walter
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
EuroIntervention. 2016 Apr 8;11(14):e1619-26. doi: 10.4244/EIJY14M11_11.
To compare tissue coverage in coronary lesions stented with durable fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stents (EES) vs. biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus A9-eluting stents (BES).
Sixty-four patients (64 lesions) with de novo coronary artery lesions were randomised to percutaneous treatment with XIENCE EES (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) vs. BioMatrix BES (Biosensors, Morges, Switzerland). The primary endpoint was the percentage of uncovered struts, as assessed with OCT, at nine months. The average percentage of uncovered struts was significantly lower with EES (4.3±4.8% vs. 8.7±7.8% with BES, p=0.019). There was no difference in the average percentage of malapposed struts at baseline (6.8±6.9% vs. 6.9±7.0%, respectively, p=0.974) and at follow-up (0.1±0.3% vs. 0.6±1.3%, p=0.143). Neointimal thickness at nine months was 109±43 µm in EES vs. 64±18 µm in BES (p<0.001), and angiographic LLL was 0.15 mm in EES vs. 0.10 mm in BES (p=0.581). We did not observe differences in the incidence of MACE and ST.
A significantly higher percentage of uncovered struts was detected in the BioMatrix BES compared with the XIENCE EES at nine-month follow-up. Our findings do not support a preferential use of stents with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus elution to reduce the risk for ST.
比较使用耐用含氟聚合物涂层依维莫司洗脱支架(EES)与可生物降解聚合物涂层生物雷帕霉素A9洗脱支架(BES)进行支架置入的冠状动脉病变中的组织覆盖情况。
64例(64处病变)新发冠状动脉病变患者被随机分为接受雅培血管(美国加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉)XIENCE EES经皮治疗组与瑞士莫尔日生物传感器公司BioMatrix BES经皮治疗组。主要终点为9个月时用光学相干断层扫描(OCT)评估的未覆盖支架小梁的百分比。EES组未覆盖支架小梁的平均百分比显著更低(4.3±4.8%,而BES组为8.7±7.8%,p = 0.019)。基线时贴壁不良支架小梁的平均百分比无差异(分别为6.8±6.9%和6.9±7.0%,p = 0.974),随访时也无差异(0.1±0.3%和0.6±1.3%,p = 0.143)。EES组9个月时新生内膜厚度为109±43 µm,BES组为64±18 µm(p<0.001),血管造影显示的晚期管腔丢失在EES组为0.15 mm,BES组为0.10 mm(p = 总不良反应发生率为0.581)。我们未观察到主要不良心血管事件(MACE)和支架内血栓形成(ST)发生率的差异。
在9个月随访时,与XIENCE EES相比,BioMatrix BES中检测到的未覆盖支架小梁百分比显著更高。我们的研究结果不支持优先使用基于可生物降解聚合物的生物雷帕霉素洗脱支架以降低ST风险。