Key result
Everolimus-eluting stents provided similar average neointimal thickness in patients with and without diabetes, but diabetic patients had greater asymmetric stent expansion and uneven suppression.
Why the study?
Does everolimus-eluting stent implantation result in different vascular healing responses (neointimal thickness, coverage, and uniformity) in patients with diabetes mellitus compared to those without?
Observational (n=123)
Does everolimus-eluting stent implantation result in different vascular healing responses (neointimal thickness, coverage, and uniformity) in patients with diabetes mellitus compared to those without?
While everolimus-eluting stents provide similar average neointimal suppression in diabetic and non-diabetic patients, diabetic patients exhibit more uneven neointimal suppression and asymmetric stent expansion, potentially driven by larger culprit plaque volumes.
May inform optimized deployment techniques in diabetes; hypothesis-generating for uniformity-focused trials before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Previous reports have shown potential disadvantages of limus-derivative drugs for the stenting treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 159 coronary artery lesions (DM: n=72, non-DM: n=87) in 123 patients treated with everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and who underwent scheduled 9-month follow-up angiography with optical coherence tomography (OCT) regardless of symptoms. In addition to standard OCT variables, neointimal unevenness score (maximum/average neointimal thickness) and stent eccentricity index (minimum/maximum stent diameter) were calculated for each cross-section. To investigate a potential baseline difference between DM and non-DM lesions, pre- and post-interventional intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) images were also evaluated as an IVUS subgroup analysis. The average neointimal thickness and neointimal coverage did not differ between DM and non-DM patients. DM patients had, however, greater asymmetric stent expansion and variability of neointimal thickness than non-DM patients. There was a weak, but significant association between average stent eccentricity index and neointimal unevenness score. The IVUS substudy showed that the culprit plaque volume and plaque eccentricity in DM patients were significantly greater than in non-DM patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although EES provided a similar level of average neointimal thickness and coverage both in the presence and absence of DM, uneven neointimal suppression occurred in DM patients. A larger plaque volume of the culprit lesion may hamper symmetric stent expansion, possibly explaining the non-uniform neointimal suppression in DM patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iwasaki et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=123). Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with Diabetes Mellitus vs. EES in patients without Diabetes Mellitus was evaluated on Neointimal thickness, neointimal coverage, neointimal unevenness score, and stent eccentricity index. Everolimus-eluting stents provided similar average neointimal thickness in patients with and without diabetes, but diabetic patients had greater asymmetric stent expansion and uneven suppression.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: