Key result
The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent demonstrated a lower Neointimal Healing Score at 3 months compared to everolimus-eluting stents in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
Why the study?
Stents differ in material, design, drug, and polymer coating, prompting investigation of neoendothelialization by OCT after implanting various stent platforms in stable coronary heart disease.
Does a sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent improve neointimal healing compared to everolimus-eluting stents in patients with stable ischemic heart disease?
Cohort (n=69)
Does a sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent improve neointimal healing compared to everolimus-eluting stents in patients with stable ischemic heart disease?
Sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stents demonstrated better neointimal healing at 3 months compared to everolimus-eluting stents in patients with stable ischemic heart disease, though stent diameter differences may have confounded the results.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SES-BP associated with better neointimal healing; hypothesis-generating and should not change practice pending randomized confirmation.
Introduction. Today, a number of stents are widely used in the world, differing in material, design, drug composition and the content of the polymer coating. The aim of our study is to investigate the processes of neoendothelialization according to optical coherence tomography data in patients with stable coronary heart disease after implantation of various stent platforms. Materials and Methods . This study is a retrospective data analysis of stenting results in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. A total of 69 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into 3 groups by the type of stent implanted: group 1 everolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (EES-PP) (n=25), group 2 everolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent (EES-BP) (n=25) and group 3 sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent (SES-BP) (n=19). The primary endpoint of the study was the Neointimal Healing Score (NHS) 3 months after stent implantation. The secondary endpoint included the percentage of struts covered 3 months after stenting. Results . The percentage of covered strata in the groups did not have a statistically significant difference between the groups and was about 84.2%. Since the length of the implanted stents was slightly higher in the SES-BP group, the difference in the number of strata studied was higher in group 3: 331 versus 175 in group 2 and 175 in group 1 (1–2: p=0.969; 2–3: p<0.001; 1–3: p<0.001). The primary endpoint of the study was significantly lower in the SES-BP group (18±14.97 vs 32.5±20.3 in the EES-BP group and 25.6±12.3 in the EES-PP group), but the NHS in the EES-BP and EES-PP groups was not statistically different. Conclusion . The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer (SESBP) stent has a better neointimal healing rate during the first three months compared to the everolimus-eluting bioabsorbable (EES-BP) polymer stent and the permanent polymer everolimus-eluting (EES-PP) stent in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The percentage of covered strata in the groups does not differ significantly. Further prospective randomized studies with larger samples are needed to confirm the findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Biryukov et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Stable ischemic heart disease (n=69). Sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent (SES-BP) vs. Everolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent (EES-BP) and everolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (EES-PP) was evaluated on Neointimal Healing Score (NHS) at 3 months (p=<0.001). The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent demonstrated a lower Neointimal Healing Score at 3 months compared to everolimus-eluting stents in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: