Key result
Everolimus-eluting stents overcome first-generation limitations with low rates of late loss, restenosis, and stent thrombosis.
Why the study?
Do everolimus-eluting stents improve clinical and angiographic outcomes compared to first-generation drug-eluting stents?
Do everolimus-eluting stents improve clinical and angiographic outcomes compared to first-generation drug-eluting stents?
Everolimus-eluting stents address the limitations of first-generation DES by demonstrating low rates of restenosis and very late stent thrombosis, substantiating their widespread clinical use.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports everolimus-eluting stent selection; extends prior observations but leaves open randomized confirmation.
Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) represent the next generation of drug-eluting stents (DES). Important design modifications include thin strut stent backbones, less inflammatory and more biocompatible polymers, and lower drug dosing. The cobalt chromium EES fluoropolymer XIENCE V stent has been the most extensively studied of such stents. In animal models, this stent demonstrated minimal vessel inflammation, a biologically active endothelium with strut coverage similar to a bare metal stent, and inhibition of intimal hyperplasia comparable to that seen with sirolimus-eluting stents. The SPIRIT family of clinical trials demonstrated low rates of late loss, and clinical restenosis, as well as low rates of very late stent thrombosis. These excellent clinical outcomes addressed limitations of the 1st generation DES, and substantiated widespread clinical use of the EES platform.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Whitbeck et al. (2013) reported a review. Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) vs. 1st generation DES was evaluated. Everolimus-eluting stents demonstrated low rates of late loss, clinical restenosis, and very late stent thrombosis, addressing limitations of first-generation drug-eluting stents.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: