4.5 Article

Clinical and angiographic experience with a third-generation drug-eluting Orsiro stent in the treatment of single de novo coronary artery lesions (BIOFLOW-I): a prospective, first-in-man study

期刊

EUROINTERVENTION
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 1006-1011

出版社

EUROPA EDITION
DOI: 10.4244/EIJV8I9A155

关键词

biodegradable polymer; coronary artery disease; drug-eluting stent; first-in-man study; sirolimus-eluting stent

资金

  1. Cordis
  2. Terumo
  3. Medicines Company
  4. Lilly
  5. Biotronik
  6. Medtronic
  7. GlaxoSmithKline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To report the four-month and nine-month angiographic results as well as one-year clinical follow-up from the first-in-man study with the silicon carbide and sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer (poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) polymer) -coated cobalt-chromium Orsiro stent. Methods and results: A group of 30 patients with documented myocardial ischaemia related to a single de novo coronary stenosis up to 22 mm in length, in vessels with a 2.5 to 3.5 mm reference diameter, and between >50% and <90% diameter stenosis were enrolled at two sites. The primary endpoint of the study was in-stent late lumen loss at nine months. The secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at one year defined as the composite of cardiac death, ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and target vessel myocardial infarction (MI). Procedural success was 100%. Angiographic late lumen loss was 0.12 +/- 0.19 mm and 0.05 +/- 0.22 mm at four and nine months respectively. At one-year clinical follow-up, the composite MACE was 10% with one patient who died from cardiac death and two patients who had ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation. There was no report of MI or stent thrombosis. Conclusions: The Orsiro drug-eluting stent demonstrated potency with low rates of in-stent neointimal hyperplasia and cardiovascular events but warrants further evaluation in a larger population cohort with longer follow-up time points.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据