We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Bioabsorbable Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Bare Metal Stent in Iliac Artery Evaluated by Optical Coherence Tomography: An In Vivo Study in Porcine.
Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2018 October
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare, using optical coherence tomography (OCT), the outcomes of bioabsorbable drug-eluting stent with those of bare metal stent (BMS) following implantation in porcine iliac artery.
METHODS: After the placement of BMS and bioabsorbable drug-eluting stents, we used OCT and digital subtraction angiography to investigate stent appositions, arterial neointima, evagination, and restenosis at 1 and 3 months.
RESULTS: At 1 and 3 months after stent implantation, OCT study was performed to investigate 32 stents and 21 788 struts. Thirty-three malapposed struts were found in the bioabsorbable drug-eluting stent groups and 2 were found in BMS groups. The average neointimal thickness, area, and in-stent stenosis were significantly lower in bioabsorbable drug-eluting stents than in BMS, while the frequency of malapposed struts was higher in the bioresorbable drug-eluting stent groups. Average neointimal thickness was lower in bioabsorbable drug-eluting stents than in BMS at 1 (0.19 ± 0.09 vs 0.67 ± 0.75 mm; P < .001) and 3 months (0.21 ± 0.08 vs 1.52 ± 0.28 mm; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that bioabsorbable drug-eluting stent is more effective in decreasing arterial restenosis than BMS in animal models.
METHODS: After the placement of BMS and bioabsorbable drug-eluting stents, we used OCT and digital subtraction angiography to investigate stent appositions, arterial neointima, evagination, and restenosis at 1 and 3 months.
RESULTS: At 1 and 3 months after stent implantation, OCT study was performed to investigate 32 stents and 21 788 struts. Thirty-three malapposed struts were found in the bioabsorbable drug-eluting stent groups and 2 were found in BMS groups. The average neointimal thickness, area, and in-stent stenosis were significantly lower in bioabsorbable drug-eluting stents than in BMS, while the frequency of malapposed struts was higher in the bioresorbable drug-eluting stent groups. Average neointimal thickness was lower in bioabsorbable drug-eluting stents than in BMS at 1 (0.19 ± 0.09 vs 0.67 ± 0.75 mm; P < .001) and 3 months (0.21 ± 0.08 vs 1.52 ± 0.28 mm; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that bioabsorbable drug-eluting stent is more effective in decreasing arterial restenosis than BMS in animal models.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Advances in Clinical Cardiology 2023: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials.Advances in Therapy 2024 May 15
Nutrition in the intensive care unit: from the acute phase to beyond.Intensive Care Medicine 2024 May 22
The Therapy and Management of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: New Insights on Treatment.Cardiac Failure Review 2024
Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2024 May 22
Bronchiectasis management in adults: state of the art and future directions.European Respiratory Journal 2024 May 24
Drug Therapy for Acute and Chronic Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction with Hypertension: A State-of-the-Art Review.American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs : Drugs, Devices, and Other Interventions 2024 April 5
Pathophysiological Link and Treatment Implication of Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.Biomedicines 2024 April 31
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
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