Key result
Overlapping drug-eluting stents in a porcine model increased minimal luminal diameter compared to bare metal stents (e.g., SES 2.79 mm vs BMS 1.78 mm, p<0.001) but worsened inflammation.
Why the study?
Does the use of overlapping drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents affect neointimal hyperplasia, inflammation, and endothelization in a porcine coronary model?
Does the use of overlapping drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents affect neointimal hyperplasia, inflammation, and endothelization in a porcine coronary model?
p-value: p=<0.001
Overlapping drug-eluting stents effectively inhibit neointimal hyperplasia compared to bare metal stents but are associated with increased inflammation and delayed endothelization in a porcine model.
Should not guide clinical stent selection; leaves open net benefit of overlapping DES versus BMS in humans.
Background and Objectives:This study was conducted to evaluate the inflammatory reaction at sites of overlapping stents in a porcine in-stent restenosis (ISR) model. Materials and Methods:Twenty bare metal stents (BMS, Group I; n=10), 20 sirolimus-eluting stents (SES, Group II; n=10), 20 paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES, Group III; n=10), 10 PESs and 10 SESs (Group IV; n=10) were deployed and overlapped in the left anterior descending coronary arteries of 40 pigs. Follow-up coronary angiograms and histopathologic analysis were performed at 4 weeks after stenting. Results:The minimal luminal diameter of the overlapped segment at 4 weeks was smaller in group I than that in the other groups (1.78±0.13 mm vs. 2.79±0.09 mm vs. 2.90±0.04 mm vs. 2.80±0.07 mm, respectively, p<0.001). The neointimal area (5.51±0.58 mm vs. 2.38±0.53 mm vs. 2.07± 0.37 mm vs. 2.39±0.58 mm, respectively, p<0.001) and the area stenosis (68.74±4.02% vs. 27.79±4.73% vs. 23.66±3.24% vs. 27.63±4.07%, respectively, p<0.001) of the overlapped segment were significantly higher in Group I than that in the other groups. The inflammatory score of the overlapped segment was significantly higher in Group III than that in the other groups (1.80±0.42 vs. 2.10±0.32 vs. 2.90±0.31 vs. 2.50±0.52, respectively, p<0.001). The endothelization score of the overlapped segment was significantly lower in Group III than that in the other groups (2.80±0.42 vs. 2.30±0.67 vs. 1.30±0.48 vs. 2.10±0.74, respectively, p<0.001). Conclusion:Compared with the BMS, the DES inhibits neointimal hyperplasia, but inflammation and poor endothelization are observed at the sites of overlapped stents. (Korean Circulation J 2007;37:33-38)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lim et al. (2007) studied In-stent restenosis (n=40). Drug-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting and/or paclitaxel-eluting) vs. Bare metal stents was evaluated on Minimal luminal diameter of the overlapped segment at 4 weeks (p=<0.001). Overlapping drug-eluting stents in a porcine model increased minimal luminal diameter compared to bare metal stents (e.g., SES 2.79 mm vs BMS 1.78 mm, p<0.001) but worsened inflammation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: