Abstract
BackgroundIn BIOACTIVE study, we evaluated vascular responses after the implant of biolimus A9‐eluting stent (BES; BioMatrixTM) and the everolimus‐eluting stent (EES; XIENCE VTM). In this study, we present the optical coherence tomography analysis (OCT) 6 months post‐intervention. MethodsPatients were randomized to treatment with BES (n = 22) or EES (n = 18). The primary outcome was the frequency of non‐covered, poorly positioned struts by OCT. ResultsOCT was performed in 26 patients (BES: n = 15; EES: n = 11) and 749 tomographic images and 7,725 stent struts were analyzed. BES and EES showed similar luminal and stent areas. Neointimal hyperplasia area, neointimal thickness and the percentage of in‐stent obstruction (8.44 ± 5.10% vs. 9.21 ± 6.36%; p = 0.74) were similar. The rates of not covered struts (BES: 2.10 ± 3.60% vs. ESS: 2.46 ± 2.15%, p = 0.77) and poorly positioned struts (BES: 0.48 ± 1.48% vs. EES 0.44 ± 1.05%, p = 0.94) were similarly low. The frequency of frames with signs consistent with peri‐strut inflammatory infiltrate was low and similar between BES (15.53 ± 20.77%) and EES (11.70 ± 27.51%; p = 0.68). ConclusionsThe second‐generation drug‐eluting stents BES and EES were equally effective at suppressing the neointimal formation after 6 months, with favorable vascular responses. The frequency of frames with peri‐strut infiltrate signals per patient was low, and lower than that observed historically with first‐generation drug‐eluting stents.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.