Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 2 |
| Pages (from-to) | 2 |
| Journal | European Journal of Medical Research |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 8 Jan 2018 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Abstract
Background: Drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) have shown superior clinical performance, but are considered less suitable in complex cases. Most studies do not distinguish between DES and BMS with respect to their mechanical performance. The objective was to obtain mechanical parameters for direct comparison of BMS and DES. Methods: In vitro bench tests evaluated crimped stent profiles, crossability in stenosis models, elastic recoil, bending stiffness (crimped and expanded), and scaffolding properties. The study included five pairs of BMS and DES each with the same stent platforms (all n = 5; PRO-Kinetic Energy, Orsiro: BIOTRONIK AG, Bülach, Switzerland; MULTI-LINK 8, XIENCE Xpedition: Abbott Vascular, Temecula, CA; REBEL Monorail, Promus PREMIER, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA; Integrity, Resolute Integrity, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN; Kaname, Ultimaster: Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Statistical analysis used pooled variance t tests for pairwise comparison of BMS with DES. Results: Crimped profiles in BMS groups ranged from 0.97 ± 0.01 mm (PRO-Kinetic Energy) to 1.13 ± 0.01 mm (Kaname) and in DES groups from 1.02 ± 0.01 mm (Orsiro) to 1.13 ± 0.01 mm (Ultimaster). Crossability was best for low profile stent systems. Elastic recoil ranged from 4.07 ± 0.22% (Orsiro) to 5.87 ± 0.54% (REBEL Monorail) including both BMS and DES. The bending stiffness of crimped and expanded stents showed no systematic differences between BMS and DES neither did the scaffolding. Conclusions: Based on in vitro measurements BMS appear superior to DES in some aspects of mechanical performance, yet the differences are small and not class uniform. The data provide assistance in selecting the optimal system for treatment and assessment of new generations of bioresorbable scaffolds.
Keywords
- Drug-Eluting Stents/adverse effects, Mechanical Phenomena, Self Expandable Metallic Stents/adverse effects, Bare metal stents, Biomechanics, Interventional cardiology, Drug-eluting stents
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine(all)
- General Medicine
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: European Journal of Medical Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2, 08.01.2018, p. 2.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Direct comparison of coronary bare metal vs. drug-eluting stents
T2 - same platform, different mechanics?
AU - Schmidt, Wolfram
AU - Lanzer, Peter
AU - Behrens, Peter
AU - Brandt-Wunderlich, Christoph
AU - Öner, Alper
AU - Ince, Hüseyin
AU - Schmitz, Klaus-Peter
AU - Grabow, Niels
N1 - Funding information: Financial support by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within RESPONSE. “Partnership for Innovation in Implant Technology”is grate? fully acknowledged.
PY - 2018/1/8
Y1 - 2018/1/8
N2 - Background: Drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) have shown superior clinical performance, but are considered less suitable in complex cases. Most studies do not distinguish between DES and BMS with respect to their mechanical performance. The objective was to obtain mechanical parameters for direct comparison of BMS and DES. Methods: In vitro bench tests evaluated crimped stent profiles, crossability in stenosis models, elastic recoil, bending stiffness (crimped and expanded), and scaffolding properties. The study included five pairs of BMS and DES each with the same stent platforms (all n = 5; PRO-Kinetic Energy, Orsiro: BIOTRONIK AG, Bülach, Switzerland; MULTI-LINK 8, XIENCE Xpedition: Abbott Vascular, Temecula, CA; REBEL Monorail, Promus PREMIER, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA; Integrity, Resolute Integrity, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN; Kaname, Ultimaster: Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Statistical analysis used pooled variance t tests for pairwise comparison of BMS with DES. Results: Crimped profiles in BMS groups ranged from 0.97 ± 0.01 mm (PRO-Kinetic Energy) to 1.13 ± 0.01 mm (Kaname) and in DES groups from 1.02 ± 0.01 mm (Orsiro) to 1.13 ± 0.01 mm (Ultimaster). Crossability was best for low profile stent systems. Elastic recoil ranged from 4.07 ± 0.22% (Orsiro) to 5.87 ± 0.54% (REBEL Monorail) including both BMS and DES. The bending stiffness of crimped and expanded stents showed no systematic differences between BMS and DES neither did the scaffolding. Conclusions: Based on in vitro measurements BMS appear superior to DES in some aspects of mechanical performance, yet the differences are small and not class uniform. The data provide assistance in selecting the optimal system for treatment and assessment of new generations of bioresorbable scaffolds.
AB - Background: Drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) have shown superior clinical performance, but are considered less suitable in complex cases. Most studies do not distinguish between DES and BMS with respect to their mechanical performance. The objective was to obtain mechanical parameters for direct comparison of BMS and DES. Methods: In vitro bench tests evaluated crimped stent profiles, crossability in stenosis models, elastic recoil, bending stiffness (crimped and expanded), and scaffolding properties. The study included five pairs of BMS and DES each with the same stent platforms (all n = 5; PRO-Kinetic Energy, Orsiro: BIOTRONIK AG, Bülach, Switzerland; MULTI-LINK 8, XIENCE Xpedition: Abbott Vascular, Temecula, CA; REBEL Monorail, Promus PREMIER, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA; Integrity, Resolute Integrity, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN; Kaname, Ultimaster: Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Statistical analysis used pooled variance t tests for pairwise comparison of BMS with DES. Results: Crimped profiles in BMS groups ranged from 0.97 ± 0.01 mm (PRO-Kinetic Energy) to 1.13 ± 0.01 mm (Kaname) and in DES groups from 1.02 ± 0.01 mm (Orsiro) to 1.13 ± 0.01 mm (Ultimaster). Crossability was best for low profile stent systems. Elastic recoil ranged from 4.07 ± 0.22% (Orsiro) to 5.87 ± 0.54% (REBEL Monorail) including both BMS and DES. The bending stiffness of crimped and expanded stents showed no systematic differences between BMS and DES neither did the scaffolding. Conclusions: Based on in vitro measurements BMS appear superior to DES in some aspects of mechanical performance, yet the differences are small and not class uniform. The data provide assistance in selecting the optimal system for treatment and assessment of new generations of bioresorbable scaffolds.
KW - Drug-Eluting Stents/adverse effects
KW - Mechanical Phenomena
KW - Self Expandable Metallic Stents/adverse effects
KW - Bare metal stents
KW - Biomechanics
KW - Interventional cardiology
KW - Drug-eluting stents
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040509673&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s40001-017-0300-y
DO - 10.1186/s40001-017-0300-y
M3 - Article
C2 - 29310720
VL - 23
SP - 2
JO - European Journal of Medical Research
JF - European Journal of Medical Research
SN - 0949-2321
IS - 1
M1 - 2
ER -