Key result
Coverage of incomplete stent apposition (ISA) is delayed compared to well-apposed struts in drug-eluting stents, with a risk ratio of 9.10 for noncoverage.
Why the study?
Does incomplete stent apposition or side-branch location delay neointimal coverage compared to well-apposed struts in patients with drug-eluting stents?
RCT (n=99)
Yes
Does incomplete stent apposition or side-branch location delay neointimal coverage compared to well-apposed struts in patients with drug-eluting stents?
Effect estimate: RR 9.10 (95% CI 7.34 to 11.28)
Absolute Event Rate: 27.4% vs 94.9%
p-value: p=<0.001
Incomplete stent apposition and nonapposed side-branch struts in drug-eluting stents are associated with a significantly higher risk of delayed neointimal coverage compared to well-apposed struts at 9 to 13 months.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Incomplete stent apposition may elevate very late thrombosis risk; extends pathology and IVUS data with quantitative OCT evidence.
Gutiérrez‐Chico et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in nonapposed side-branch and incomplete stent apposition in drug-eluting stents (n=99). drug-eluting stents vs. well-apposed struts was evaluated on delayed neointimal coverage of ISA and nonapposed side-branch struts compared to well-apposed struts (RR 9.10, 95% CI 7.34 to 11.28, p=<0.001). Coverage of incomplete stent apposition (ISA) is delayed compared to well-apposed struts in drug-eluting stents, with a risk ratio of 9.10 for noncoverage.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: