Comparisons of detailed arterial healing response at seven months following implantation of an everolimus- or sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
Introduction
The preferred treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation [1], [2]. However, drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in patients with STEMI is controversial as several studies have demonstrated that vessel healing at the culprit site is substantially delayed after DES implantation compared with that in patients with stable angina [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Further, exposed and malapposed stent struts, which may be associated with late stent thrombosis, were more common after DES than bare metal stent implantation, especially in patients with STEMI [9].
The everolimus-eluting stent (EES) is a second-generation DES, in which everolimus, an anti-proliferative agent, is released from thin, non-adhesive, durable, biocompatible fluoropolymer coated onto a low-profile, flexible cobalt–chromium stent [10], [11]. In non-STEMI patients, EES implants are reported to induce more favorable vascular responses, such as a lower incidence of uncovered struts and intracoronary thrombus, than sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) despite similar neointimal thickness [11], [12]. Although EES treatment is a possible option for the treatment of patients with STEMI, the detailed vessel healing response after EES implantations in patients with STEMI has not been fully clarified.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the detailed arterial healing response following implantation of second-generation EES in patients with STEMI using optical coherence tomography (OCT) and angioscopy, and to compare the healing response with that of first-generation SES.
Section snippets
Study design
This study was a single-center, randomized controlled trial designed to compare EES (PROMUS, Boston Scientific Corp, Xience V, Abbott Vascular) and SES (Cypher Select, Cordis Corp) in patients with STEMI.
Ninety-eight consecutive patients with STEMI who visited Hyogo Prefectural Awaji Hospital between February 2010 and July 2011 and who met the following inclusion criteria were considered as candidates for the study: 1) patients presenting with symptoms of acute myocardial infarction < 24 h before
Results
No significant differences in clinical characteristics, concomitant medications, laboratory data, or cardiac function were observed between the two groups at the beginning of the study (Table 1). Average time from PCI to follow-up angiography was 207.3 ± 15.7 days in EES group and 205.8 ± 12.9 days in the SES group (P = 0.81).
Although one patient in the EES group died from a ruptured papillary muscle three days after stent implantation and one patient in the SES group occurred sub-acute stent
Discussion
The present study represents the first in-vivo report investigating detailed arterial healing response to the second generation EES in patients with STEMI by both OCT and angioscopy. We found that both the EES and SES showed an excellent suppression of neointimal proliferation in the culprit lesion in patients with STEMI. Although the EES implants showed a greater neointimal proliferation than the SES implants, the difference was small and was not associated with clinical events, such as
Study limitation
Several limitations to this study warrant mention. First, this is a single center study with a limited sample size, which may cause selection bias and fail to detect differences in clinical events in different treatments. Second, our study population comprised patients with STEMI; hence, PCI procedures were completed urgently, which might induce operator bias in the PCI procedure. Third, because the present study was not designed to compare treatment for STEMI and non-STEMI patients, the
Conclusion
For patients with STEMI, EES may promote better arterial healing response than SES. EES treatment should be considered a safe and effective option for the treatment of patients with STEMI.
References (38)
- et al.
Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials
Lancet
(2003) - et al.
Stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and death after drug-eluting and bare-metal stent coronary interventions
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2007) - et al.
Comparison of vascular response after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation between patients with unstable and stable angina pectoris
J Am Coll Cardiol Img
(2008) - et al.
Different patterns of neointimal coverage between acute coronary syndrome and stable angina after various types of drug-eluting stents implantation: 9-month follow-up optical coherence tomography study
Int J Cardiol
(2011) - et al.
Stent malapposition after sirolimus-eluting and bare-metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Acute and 9-month intravascular ultrasound results of the MISSION! Intervention study
J Am Coll Cardiol Intv
(2008) - et al.
Overview of the 2007 food and drug administration circulatory system devices panel meeting on the Xience V everolimus-eluting coronary stent
Am J Cardiol
(2008) - et al.
Long-term outcome after drug-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 3-year follow-up of the randomized DEDICATION (Drug Elution and Distal Protection in Acute Myocardial Infarction) Trial
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2010) - et al.
5-year follow-up after primary percutaneous coronary intervention with a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a bare-metal stent in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a follow-up study of the PASSION (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation) trial
JACC Cardiovasc Interv
(2011) - et al.
Six-month follow-up evaluation for everolimus-eluting stents by intracoronary optical coherence tomography: comparison with paclitaxel-eluting stents
Int J Cardiol
(2013) - et al.
Local determinants of thrombus formation following sirolimus-eluting stent implantation assessed by optical coherence tomography
JACC Cardiovasc Interv
(2009)
Morphologic changes in infarct-related plaque after coronary stent placement: a serial angioscopy study
J Am Coll Cardiol
Incomplete neointimal coverage of sirolimus-eluting stents: angioscopic findings
J Am Coll Cardiol
Heterogeneous arterial healing in patients following paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation: comparison with sirolimus-eluting stents
JACC Cardiovasc Interv
Angioscopic evaluation of neointima coverage: sirolimus drug-eluting stent vs bare metal stent
Am Heart J
Randomized trial of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction (SESAMI)
J Am Coll Cardiol
Pathology of drug eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk
J Am Coll Cardiol
Optimal stent-sizing with intravascular ultrasound contributes to complete neointimal coverage after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation assessed by angioscopy
JACC Cardiovasc Interv
Comparison of everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with acute and stable coronary syndrome
JACC cadiovasc Interv
Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis
Lancet
Cited by (19)
Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Vascular Healing Process After Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: An Optical Coherence Tomography Study
2022, Cardiovascular Revascularization MedicineCitation Excerpt :Drug-eluting stent (DES) have reduced the incidence of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to bare-metal stents [1,2]. Neointimal inhibition after first generation DES has been, however, associated with undesirable effects such as uncovered and malapposed strut [3,4]. Second generation DES, such as everolimus-eluting stent (EES), have also shown their safety and efficacy as compared to early-generation DES at short- and long-term follow-up [5–7].
CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) update 2022
2022, Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics