title: Vascular response to drug-eluting stent with biodegradable vs. durable polymer. Optical coherence tomography substudy of the NEXT.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The aim of the present study was to compare vascular healing response between everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and biolimus-eluting stent (BES) using optical coherence tomography (OCT).
  
  
  RESULTS
  In the NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE V/PROMUS Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial (NEXT), a formal OCT substudy investigated 91 patients (55 EES-treated lesions in 48 patients and 51 BES-treated lesions in 43 patients) with 8-12 months follow-up imaging at 18 centers. A total of 980 frames with 8,996 struts in EES and 907 frames with 8,745 struts in BES were analyzed. Mean neointima thickness in EES and BES was 105±82μm and 91±80μm, respectively (P<0.001). With regard to stent-treated lesions, the percentage of struts not covered by neointima (3±7% vs. 9±10%, P<0.001) and the frequency of stent-treated lesions with any uncovered struts (n=28, 51% vs. n=42, 82%; P<0.001) were significantly lower in EES compared with BES. In addition, the percentage of malapposed struts (0.2±0.8% vs. 1.3±2.8%, P=0.006) and the frequency of stent-treated lesions with any malapposed struts (n=6, 11% vs. n=14, 27%; P=0.028) were significantly lower in EES compared with BES.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Incomplete vascular healing characterized by the presence of struts not covered by neointima and malapposed struts was less common in EES compared with BES.
authors.affiliation: Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Wakayama Medical University.
authors.forename: Takashi
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kubo
authors.forename: Takashi
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Akasaka
authors.forename: Ken
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kozuma
authors.forename: Kazuo
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kimura
authors.forename: Tetsuya
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Fusazaki
authors.forename: Hiroyuki
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Okura
authors.forename: Toshiro
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Shinke
authors.forename: Yasushi
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Ino
authors.forename: Takao
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Hasegawa
authors.forename: Hiroaki
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Takashima
authors.forename: Itaru
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Takamisawa
authors.forename: Hiroshi
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Yamaguchi
authors.forename: Keiichi
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Igarashi
authors.forename: Kazushige
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kadota
authors.forename: Kengo
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Tanabe
authors.forename: Yoshihisa
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Nakagawa
authors.forename: Toshiya
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Muramatsu
authors.forename: Yoshihiro
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Morino
authors.forename: Takeshi
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kimura
mesh_terms: D020341:Absorbable Implants / Q000009:adverse effects*; D000368:Aged; D054855:Drug-Eluting Stents / Q000009:adverse effects*; D000068338:Everolimus; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007166:Immunosuppressive Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D058426:Neointima / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000209:etiology; D062645:Percutaneous Coronary Intervention / Q000009:adverse effects*; D020123:Sirolimus / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000031:analogs & derivatives*
chemical_list: D007166:Immunosuppressive Agents; D000068338:Everolimus; D020123:Sirolimus