Background: We compared the effect of arterial remodeling on intimal hyperplasia (IH) after the implantation of a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). Methods: The study population consisted of patients with positive or intermediate remodeling and negative remodeling. Results: Sixty-nine patients had positive or intermediate remodeling and 107 patients had negative remodeling. At follow-up, late loss was significantly larger (0.58 ± 0.65 vs. 0.38 ± 0.55 mm; p = 0.026) in the patients with positive or intermediate remodeling. The IH volume (22.6 ± 26.2 vs. 12.4 ± 17.4 mm3; p = 0.002) and the percent IH (12.9 ± 14.8 vs. 7.0 ± 9.6%; p = 0.002) were significantly higher in the patients with positive or intermediate remodeling. Compared to negative remodeling, the IH volume was higher in the PES patients with positive or intermediate remodeling, but this difference was not noted in the SES patients. Multiple-regression analysis revealed that arterial remodeling was a significant independent variable for predicting IH volume in the PES patients (p = 0.018). A positive correlation was found between the remodeling index and the IH volume in the PES patients (r = 0.234, p = 0.028), but not in the SES patients. Conclusions: This prospective observational intravascular ultrasound study showed that drug-eluting stents may have a different effect on reducing IH accumulation in lesions with preinterventional positive remodeling characteristics which may be related to the different properties of the drug and delivery platform.

Keywords:
Arterial remodeling, Remodeling index, Drug-eluting stent, Intimal hyperplasia
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.