Tissue coverage of a hydrophilic polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent vs. a fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent at 13-month follow-up: an optical coherence tomography substudy from the RESOLUTE All Comers trial

Gutiérrez-Chico, Juan Luis; van Geuns, Robert Jan; Regar, Evelyn; van der Giessen, Willem J; Kelbæk, Henning; Saunamäki, Kari; Escaned, Javier; Gonzalo, Nieves; di Mario, Carlo; Borgia, Francesco; Nüesch, Eveline; García-García, Héctor M; Silber, Sigmund; Windecker, Stephan; Serruys, Patrick W (2011). Tissue coverage of a hydrophilic polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent vs. a fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent at 13-month follow-up: an optical coherence tomography substudy from the RESOLUTE All Comers trial. European Heart Journal, 32(19), pp. 2454-2463. Oxford: Oxford University Press 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr182

[img]
Preview
Text
Gutiérrez-Chico EurHeartJ 2011.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial (CC-BY-NC).

Download (422kB) | Preview

Aims To compare the tissue coverage of a hydrophilic polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) vs. a fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at 13 months, using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in an ‘all-comers' population of patients, in order to clarify the mechanism of eventual differences in the biocompatibility and thrombogenicity of the devices. Methods and results Patients randomized to angiographic follow-up in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (NCT00617084) at pre-specified OCT sites underwent OCT follow-up at 13 months. Tissue coverage and apposition were assessed strut by strut, and the results in both treatment groups were compared using multilevel logistic or linear regression, as appropriate, with clustering at three different levels: patient, lesion, and stent. Fifty-eight patients (30 ZES and 28 EES), 72 lesions, 107 stents, and 23 197 struts were analysed. Eight hundred and eighty-seven and 654 uncovered struts (7.4 and 5.8%, P= 0.378), and 216 and 161 malapposed struts (1.8 and 1.4%, P= 0.569) were found in the ZES and EES groups, respectively. The mean thickness of coverage was 116 ± 99 µm in ZES and 142 ± 113 µm in EES (P= 0.466). No differences in per cent neointimal volume obstruction (12.5 ± 7.9 vs. 15.0 ± 10.7%) or other areas–volumetric parameters were found between ZES and EES, respectively. Conclusion No significant differences in tissue coverage, malapposition, or lumen/stent areas and volumes were detected by OCT between the hydrophilic polymer-coated ZES and the fluoropolymer-coated EES at 13-month follow-up.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine
04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Cardiovascular Disorders (DHGE) > Clinic of Cardiology

UniBE Contributor:

Nüesch, Eveline and Windecker, Stephan

ISSN:

0195-668X

Publisher:

Oxford University Press

Language:

English

Submitter:

Factscience Import

Date Deposited:

04 Oct 2013 14:21

Last Modified:

09 Oct 2019 15:25

Publisher DOI:

10.1093/eurheartj/ehr182

PubMed ID:

21659439

Web of Science ID:

000295684300026

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.7225

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/7225 (FactScience: 212412)

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback