Infarto de miocardio; Disfunción endotelial; Tomografía de coherencia ópticaMyocardial infarction; Endothelial dysfunction; Optical coherence tomographyInfart de miocardi; Disfunció endotelial; Tomografia de coherència òpticaBackground
Early generation drug‐eluting stents (DESs) showed a high grade of coronary endothelial dysfunction that was attributed to lack of stent reendothelialization. Endothelium‐dependent vasomotor response of current DESs and bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) remains unknown. This study sought to assess the device‐related endothelial function of current devices and to correlate neointima healing with endothelial function.
Methods and Results
A total of 206 patients from 4 randomized trials treated with the durable‐polymer everolimus‐eluting Xience (n=44), bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting Orsiro (n=35), polymer‐free biolimus‐eluting Biofreedom (n=24), bioactive endothelial‐progenitor cell‐capturing sirolimus‐eluting Combo DES (n=25), polymer‐based everolimus‐eluting Absorb (n=44), and Mg‐based sirolimus‐eluting Magmaris BRS (n=34) underwent endothelium‐dependent vasomotor tests and optical coherence tomography imaging, as per protocol, at follow‐up. Crude vasomotor responses of distal segments to low‐dose acetylcholine (10−6 mol/L) were different between groups: bioresorbablepolymer DEShad the worst (−8.4%±12.6%) and durable‐polymer DES had the most physiologic (−0.4%±11.8%; P=0.014). High‐dose acetylcholine (10−4 mol/L) showed similar responses between groups (ranging from −10.8%±11.6% to −18.1%±15.4%; P=0.229). Device healing was different between devices. Uncovered struts ranged from 6.3%±7.1% (bioresorbable‐polymer DES) to 2.5%±4.5% (bioactive DES; P=0.056). In multivariate models, endothelium‐dependent vasomotor response was associated with age, bioresorbable‐polymer DES, and angiographic lumen loss, but not with strut coverage nor plaque type. Endothelial dysfunction (defined as ≥4% vasoconstriction) was observed in 46.6% of patients with low‐dose and 68.9% with high‐dose acetylcholine, without differences between groups.
Conclusions
At follow‐up, endothelial dysfunction was frequently observed in distal segments treated with current stents without remarkable differences between devices. Although neointima healing was different between devices, poor healing was not associated with endothelial dysfunction.The source funding of the 4 randomized trials included in this study is the following. The BVS‐FLOW trial (Coronary vasomotor function and myocardial flow with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds or everolimus‐eluting metallic stents: a randomised trial) was funded by a grant of “La Marato” Foundation. The Spanish Heart Foundation funded the RE‐TROFI2 (Long‐Term Coronary Functional Assessment of the Infarct‐Related Artery Treated With Everolimus‐Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds or Everolimus‐Eluting Metallic Stents: Insights of the TROFI II Trial) and MAGSTEMI (Magnesium‐Based Resorbable Scaffold Versus Permanent Metallic Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent in Patients With ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trials. The FUNCOMBO (Coronary endothelial and microvascular function distal to polymer‐free and endothelial cell‐capturing drug‐eluting stents) trial was funded by OrbusNeich and was promoted by the Spanish Heart Foundation
