4.7 Review

Hypersensitivity and in-stent restenosis in coronary stent materials

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.1003322

关键词

in-stent restenosis; hypersensitivity; drug-eluting stent; eosinophils; stainless steel

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. Zhejiang Provincial Key Research and Development Plan
  3. [81570322]
  4. [82170332]
  5. [2020C03016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article describes the relationship between in-stent restenosis (ISR) and hypersensitivity reactions in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) after percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention (PCI). With the emergence of drug-eluting stents (DES), the efficacy and prognosis of CHD patients have greatly improved, but the components of DESs can still induce hypersensitivity reactions and lead to long-term adverse cardiovascular events.
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a type of cardiovascular disease with the highest mortality rate worldwide. Percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention (PCI) is the most effective method for treating CHD. However, in-stent restenosis (ISR), a long-term complication after PCI, affects the prognosis of patients with CHD. Previous studies have suggested that hypersensitivity reactions induced by metallic components may be one of the reasons of this complication. With the emergence of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), the efficacy and prognosis of patients with CHD have greatly improved, and the incidence of ISR has gradually decreased to less than 10%. Nevertheless, DES components have been reported to induce hypersensitivity reactions, either individually or synergistically, and cause local inflammation and neointima formation, leading to long-term adverse cardiovascular events. In this article, we described the relationship between ISR and hypersensitivity from different perspectives, including its possible pathogenesis, and discussed their potential influencing factors and clinical significance.

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

4.7
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