4.8 Article

Pathological correlates of late drug-eluting stent thrombosis - Strut coverage as a marker of endothelialization

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 115, 期 18, 页码 2435-2441

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.693739

关键词

complications; stents; thrombus; pathology; endothelium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - Late stent thrombosis (LST) after Cypher and Taxus drug-eluting stent placement has emerged as a major concern. Although the clinical predictors of LST have been reported, specific morphological and histological correlates of LST remain unknown. Methods and Results - From a registry totaling 81 human autopsies of drug-eluting stents, 46 (62 lesions) had a drug-eluting stent implanted > 30 days. We identified 28 lesions with thrombus and compared those with 34 of similar duration without thrombosis using computer-guided morphometric and histological analyses. LST was defined as an acute thrombus within a coronary artery stent in place > 30 days. Multiple logistic generalized estimating equations modeling demonstrated that endothelialization was the best predictor of thrombosis. The morphometric parameter that best correlated with endothelialization was the ratio of uncovered to total stent struts per section. A univariable logistic generalized estimating equations model of occurrence of thrombus in a stent section versus ratio of uncovered to total stent struts per section demonstrated a marked increase in risk for LST as the number of uncovered struts increased. The odds ratio for thrombus in a stent with a ratio of uncovered to total stent struts per section > 30% is 9.0 (95% CI, 3.5 to 22). Conclusions - The most powerful histological predictor of stent thrombosis was endothelial coverage. The best morphometric predictor of LST was the ratio of uncovered to total stent struts. Heterogeneity of healing is a common finding in drug-eluting stents with evidence of LST and demonstrates the importance of incomplete healing of the stented segment in the pathophysiology of LST.

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

4.8
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