4.7 Article

Plaque burden is associated with minimal intimal coverage following drug-eluting stent implantation in an adult familial hypercholesterolemia swine model

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-37690-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the neointimal response of coronary drug-eluting stents in swine with significant coronary atherosclerosis. The results showed that in swine with mild atherosclerosis, the stents induced fibrotic neointima, while in swine with severe atherosclerosis, incomplete healing was observed.
Safety and efficacy of coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) are often preclinically tested using healthy or minimally diseased swine. These generally show significant fibrotic neointima at follow-up, while in patients, incomplete healing is often observed. The aim of this study was to investigate neointima responses to DES in swine with significant coronary atherosclerosis. Adult familial hypercholesterolemic swine (n = 6) received a high fat diet to develop atherosclerosis. Serial OCT was performed before, directly after, and 28 days after DES implantation (n = 14 stents). Lumen, stent and plaque area, uncovered struts, neointima thickness and neointima type were analyzed for each frame and averaged per stent. Histology was performed to show differences in coronary atherosclerosis. A range of plaque size and severity was found, from healthy segments to lipid-rich plaques. Accordingly, neointima responses ranged from uncovered struts, to minimal neointima, to fibrotic neointima. Lower plaque burden resulted in a fibrotic neointima at follow-up, reminiscent of minimally diseased swine coronary models. In contrast, higher plaque burden resulted in minimal neointima and more uncovered struts at follow-up, similarly to patients' responses. The presence of lipid-rich plaques resulted in more uncovered struts, which underscores the importance of advanced disease when performing safety and efficacy testing of DES.

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