Abhyankar A, Abizaid A, Chamié D, Rathod M. Comparison of neointimal coverage between ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents and durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stents: 6 months optical coherence tomography follow-up from the TAXCO study.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020;
97:423-430. [PMID:
32243050 PMCID:
PMC7984091 DOI:
10.1002/ccd.28833]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2019] [Revised: 01/30/2020] [Accepted: 02/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Abstract
Aim
The TAXCO study was designed to compare the degree of neointimal coverage and the prevalence of malapposition at 6 months subsequent to implantation of ultrathin biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and durable polymer‐coated everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) of thin strut thickness using optical coherence tomography (OCT).
Methods
The TAXCO study included a total of 42 patients who gave consent and underwent OCT examination between August 2017 and September 2017. Of 42, five patients' OCT examinations were of insufficient quality for quantitative analysis. Thus, the OCT analysis group consisted of 37 patients. Among them, 16 patients were treated with Xience (Abbott Vascular) and 21 with Tetriflex (Sahajanand Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Surat, India), 6 (±1) months earlier at our institution. The OCT was performed using a C7 Dragonfly™ imaging catheter (St. Jude Medical Inc.). All OCT images were analyzed at an independent core laboratory (Cardiovascular Research Center, São Paulo, Brazil) by analysts who were blinded to patient and procedural information.
Results
A total of 763 crosssections (6,882 struts) were analyzed in Xience group, and 1,127 crosssections (9,968 struts) in Tetriflex group. At 6 months, on per‐lesion basis, no significant differences were observed between Xience group and Tetriflex group in mean percentage of uncovered struts (1.87 ± 3.86 vs. 2.42 ± 3.46, p = .137) and malapposed struts (0.05 ± 0.2 vs. 0.21 ± 0.69, p = .302). Strut‐level neointimal thickness also did not differ between Xience group and Tetriflex group (0.18 ± 0.12 vs. 0.14 ± 0.08 mm, p = .286).
Conclusion
This OCT study found no significant difference in strut coverage and neointimal thickness at 6 months after implantation of biodegradable polymer‐coated Tetriflex, when compared with durable polymer‐coated Xience.
Collapse