Sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for coronary bifurcations intervention

Qian, Juying; Chen, Zhangwei; Ma, Jianying; Ge, Junbo

doi:10.1002/ccd.23392

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21 Indeed, preliminary results with the BiOSS Expert LIM stent as well as studies using other platforms have suggested that sirolimus-eluting stents may be more effective than paclitaxel-eluting ones. 22,23 Moreover, BiOSS Expert stents are made of stainless steel and therefore have relatively thick struts (naked, 120 mm), which might predispose to excessive neointimal proliferation. The use of a cobaltchromium alloy allows for thinner stent struts (60-90 mm), which may result in lower LLL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regular Drug-Eluting Stent vs Dedicated Coronary Bifurcation BiOSS Expert Stent: Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Controlled POLBOS I Trial

Gil

Bil

Džavík

et al. 2015

Canadian Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regular Drug-Eluting Stent vs Dedicated Coronary Bifurcation BiOSS Expert Stent: Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Controlled POLBOS I Trial

Gil

Bil

Džavík

et al. 2015

Canadian Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Results of the BiOSS Expert Registry evaluating the BiOSS paclitaxel-eluting stent were encouraging and, subsequently, the randomised POLBOS I trial comparing BiOSS Expert with rDES was conducted 3,12 . However, in the meantime many studies have shown paclitaxel-eluting stents to be inferior to "olimus"-eluting stents 13 . Therefore, a new version of the BiOSS stent, the BiOSS LIM, eluting sirolimus, was designed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regular drug-eluting stents versus the dedicated coronary bifurcation sirolimus-eluting BiOSS LIM® stent: the randomised, multicentre, open-label, controlled POLBOS II trial

Gil

Bil²,

Grundeken³

et al. 2016

EuroIntervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After 2 years of follow-up in PES group the rate of MACE was 28.6 % and in SES 10.6 % (P = 0.03), whereas the LLL was 1.03 ± 0.45 and 0.28 ± 0.54 mm (P < 0.001) respectively. Also, in a meta-analysis it was proved that when comparing with PES, SES reduced the incidence of TLR, main-branch restenosis and MACE in coronary bifurcation intervention, while the risk of stent thrombosis was similar between SES and PES groups [ 15 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

12-month intravascular ultrasound observations from BiOSS® first-in-man studies

Gil

Bil

Costa

et al. 2016

Int J Cardiovasc Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to analyze the difference in neointima pattern assessed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) between two dedicated bifurcation stents, BiOSS® Expert and BiOSS® LIM at 12-month follow-up. This manuscript reports IVUS findings obtained from the analysis of patients enrolled into first-in-man registries initially assessing the BiOSS Expert® (paclitaxel) and BiOSS LIM® (sirolimus) stents. Quantitative angiographic analysis was performed pre, post-stenting, and at follow-up. IVUS examination was performed at 12 months. There were analyzed 34 cases (BiOSS Expert® 11 patients, BiOSS LIM® 23 patients). Procedural characteristics in the two groups were similar, except for rates of main vessel predilatation and FKB/POT, which were higher in BiOSS® LIM group, 54.5 % vs 73.9 % (P < 0.05) and 0 % vs 39.1 % (P < 0.05), respectively. When comparing late lumen loss (LLL) for both stents there were significantly bigger values for main vessel and main branch in the BiOSS® Expert group, but not in side branch. Intravascular ultrasound examination showed that in the BiOSS LIM® group comparing with the BiOSS Expert® group there was lower neointima burden in the whole stent (24.7 ± 7.5 % vs 19.4 ± 8.6 %, P < 0.05) as well as in main vessel (22.8 ± 5.6 % vs 16.9 ± 6.1 %, P < 0.05) and main branch (36.1 ± 6.5 % vs 27.6 ± 8.7 %, P < 0.05), but not at the level of bifurcation (15.1 ± 3.8 % vs 13.6 ± 5.4 %, P = NS). In addition, we found that final kissing balloon/proximal optimization technique (FKB/POT) was associated with significantly smaller value of LLL in main vessel (0.24 ± 0.09 mm vs 0.32 ± 0.14 mm, P < 0.05), which in IVUS analysis resulted in smaller neointima burden in main vessel (13.7 ± 3.9 % vs 18.9 ± 4.45 %, P < 0.05) as well as at the bifurcation site (12.6 ± 4.1 % vs 14.1 ± 2.4 %, P < 0.05). The obtained results suggest that neointima proliferation was the largest in main branches of both stents assessed in quantitative angiography (LLL) as well as in IVUS (neointima burden) and the neointima increase was smaller in BiOSS LIM® stents than in BiOSS Expert® stents. Moreover, the middle part of the stent seems to not to be associated with excessive neointima proliferation and more aggressive protocol of implantation with the use FKB/POT seems to decrease this process.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10554-016-0926-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for coronary bifurcations intervention

Abstract: Compared with PES, SES reduced the incidence of TLR, main-branch restenosis and MACE in coronary bifurcation intervention, while the risk of stent thrombosis was similar between SES and PES groups.

Cited by 7 publications

References 49 publications

Regular Drug-Eluting Stent vs Dedicated Coronary Bifurcation BiOSS Expert Stent: Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Controlled POLBOS I Trial

Regular Drug-Eluting Stent vs Dedicated Coronary Bifurcation BiOSS Expert Stent: Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Controlled POLBOS I Trial

Regular drug-eluting stents versus the dedicated coronary bifurcation sirolimus-eluting BiOSS LIM® stent: the randomised, multicentre, open-label, controlled POLBOS II trial

12-month intravascular ultrasound observations from BiOSS® first-in-man studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About