Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Vascular response to percutaneous coronary intervention with biodegradable-polymer vs. new-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of optical coherence tomography imaging trials.

Aims: Whether biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) induce a vascular response at follow-up more favourable than that of new-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) remains controversial. We sought to evaluate the vascular response to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BP-DES vs. new-generation DP-DES as assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging at follow-up.

Methods and results: We undertook a meta-analysis of aggregate data by searching electronic scientific databases for investigations of PCI-patients receiving BP-DES vs. new-generation DP-DES and OCT imaging at follow-up. The primary outcome was neointima hyperplasia (NIH) thickness. The co-primary outcome was the incidence of lesions with uncovered struts. The main secondary outcome was the incidence of lesions with malapposed struts. Among 10 trials, a total of 544 PCI-patients were assigned to BP-DES (n = 282) or new-generation DP-DES (n = 262). Of these, 447 participants with 480 treated lesions had analysable OCT imaging at a weighted median follow-up of 7 months. Lesions treated with BP-DES vs. new-generation DP-DES showed comparable NIH thickness [weighted mean difference 95% confidence intervals (CI)  = -11.37 (-29.25, 6.52); P = 0.21]. However, thick-struts (>100 μm) BP-DES showed less NIH thickness as compared to new-generation DP-DES [-20.39 (-33.83, -6.95); P = 0.003]. BP-DES vs. new-generation DP-DES showed a higher risk for uncovered struts [odds ratio 95% CI = 3.50 (1.69-7.26); P = 0.0008] and a trend towards higher risk for malapposed struts [2.01 (0.98-4.12); P = 0.06].

Conclusion: In PCI-patients with available OCT imaging at follow-up, BP-DES with thicker backbones delay vascular response as compared with new-generation DP-DES.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app