4.5 Article

STENTYS Self-Apposing® sirolimus-eluting stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the randomised APPOSITION IV trial

期刊

EUROINTERVENTION
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 E1267-E1274

出版社

EUROPA EDITION
DOI: 10.4244/EIJV11I11A248

关键词

malapposition; percutaneous coronary intervention; self-apposing stent; self-expanding stent; ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); strut coverage

资金

  1. STENTYS S.A., Paris, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: We sought to investigate the impact of the self-apposing, sirolimus-eluting STENTYS stent on midterm and long-term stent apposition and strut coverage compared with a zotarolimus-eluting balloon expandable stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary per cutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods and results: In the APPOSITION IV trial, 152 STEMI patients were randomised (3:2) to the self-apposing, sirolimus-eluting STENTYS stent or a commercially available zotarolimus-eluting balloon expandable stent at 12 sites in five countries with angiographic follow--up and optical coherence tomography at four or nine months. At four months, a lower percentage of malapposed stent struts was observed in the STENTYS group (N=21; N1=501) compared with controls (N=26; N=326; 0.07% vs. 1.16%; p=0.002) with significantly more covered struts, using a 20 pm cut-off (94.32% vs. 89.09%; p=0.003). At nine months, the primary endpoint (percentage malapposed stein struts) was similar in both groups (STENTYS, N=40; N(strut)s=566; control, N=21; N-struts=292), showing complete apposition (p=0.55) and near total (>96%) coverage (p=0.58). Conclusions: In STEMI patients undergoing PPCI, the self-apposing, siro mms-eluting STENTYS stent was equivalent to a conventional dnig-eluting balloon-expandable stent with respect to late stent strut apposition and coverage at nine months. How-ever, stent strut apposition and coverage at four months were significantly better in the STENTYS group.

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