• Users Online: 300
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 158-163

Acute mechanical performance of bioresorbable scaffolds compared with everolimus-eluting stents under optical coherence tomography guidance


1 Cardiovascular Department, Al Qassimi Hospital, Sharjah, UAE; Cardiovascular Department, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
2 Cardiovascular Department, Al Qassimi Hospital, Sharjah, UAE
3 Cardiovascular Department, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Nagwa A Abdelrahman
Department of Cardiovascular, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Orman Cardiology Hospital, Assiut University, Assiut 71515

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCMRP.JCMRP_155_19

Rights and Permissions

Objective The aim was to compare the acute mechanical performance of the ABSORB bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) with the everolimus-eluted stents (EES) after optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided deployment. Background The intrinsic differences in biomechanical properties between BRS and EES and the thicker BRS struts can affect the BRS acute mechanical performance in terms of scaffold expansion and struts apposition. Materials and methods The authors compared the acute mechanical performance of 245 scaffolds with that of 82 everolimus-eluted EES. All scaffolds/stents were deployed under OCT guidance. OCT was used to assess the following acute mechanical performance indices: residual area stenosis, device underexpansion, struts malapposition, edge dissection whether covered or uncovered, and strut fracture. Results Two hundred forty-five scaffolds implanted in 162 patients in the BRS arm were compared with 82 stents implanted in 61 patients in the EES arm. Final OCT acquisitions showed no statistically significant difference in the acute mechanical performance indices between both arms, in terms of residual area stenosis, device underexpansion, struts malapposition, and struts fracture. The only significant difference was noted in the higher rates of both covered and uncovered edge dissections in the BRS arm. Conclusion Under OCT guidance, there was no significant difference in the acute mechanical performance of BRS vs EES, apart from higher rates of both covered and uncovered edge dissections in the BRS arm.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed117    
    Printed8    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded19    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal