Loading…

Polymer-Based Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents Are Superior to Nonpolymer-Based Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Lesions

Although polymer coating of coronary stents enables sufficient loading and release of incorporated drugs, it has also been associated with potentially negative effects. This study compared the clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) outcomes of patients treated with polymer- vers...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of cardiology 2006-10, Vol.98 (8), p.1022-1027
Main Authors: Iofina, Ekaterina, Langenberg, Roswitha, Blindt, Rüdiger, Kühl, Harald, Kelm, Malte, Hoffmann, Rainer
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Although polymer coating of coronary stents enables sufficient loading and release of incorporated drugs, it has also been associated with potentially negative effects. This study compared the clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) outcomes of patients treated with polymer- versus nonpolymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs). Sixty-five consecutive patients (70 de novo lesions) treated with polymer-based PESs (TAXUS, 1 μg/mm 2 of paclitaxel; Boston Scientific Corp.) and 65 consecutive patients (65 de novo lesions) treated with nonpolymer-based PESs (V-Flex Plus, 2.7 μg/mm 2 of paclitaxel; Cook, Inc.) were enrolled in the study. Six-month angiographic follow-up was performed on 54 lesions of the polymer-based PES group and 51 lesions of the nonpolymer-based PES group. IVUS at angiographic follow-up was performed in 61 of the first 70 included lesions. At 6-month IVUS follow-up, mean intimal hyperplasia cross-sectional area was 2.36 ± 1.60 mm 2 in the nonpolymer-based PES group versus 0.62 ± 0.41 mm 2 in the polymer-based PES group (p = 0.003). Implantation of polymer-based PESs resulted in significantly lower in-stent late lumen loss (0.22 ± 0.27 vs 0.74 ± 0.61 mm, respectively, p
ISSN:0002-9149
1879-1913
DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.05.019