Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 18, 2025
Ferromagnetic Bare Metal Stent for Endothelial Cell Capture and Retention
Published on: September 18, 2015
Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in primary percutaneous coronary
Erlend Eriksen1,2, Omeed Neghabat3, Sahrai Saeed1
1Department of Heart Disease, Haukeland University Hospital.
Background:
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of a metallic drug-eluting stent (DES) is the standard treatment for patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Implantation of a bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) during STEMI represents a novel strategy without intravascular metal.
Objective:
The aim of the study was to investigate 12-month healing response in an STEMI population after implantation of either the Absorb BRS or Xience DES (Abbott Vascular, USA).
Methods:
The present trial was a prospective, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, noninferiority study with planned inclusion of 120 patients with STEMI. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with Absorb BRS or Xience DES. Implantation result and healing response were evaluated by angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline and 12-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was minimum flow area (MFA) assessed at 12 months. Coronary stent healing index (CSHI) was calculated from OCT images.
Results:
Out of 66 included patients, 58 had follow-up OCT after 12 months, and 49 entered matched analysis. One death occurred in each group; none were stent-related. MFA was 5.13 ± 1.70 mm2 (95% CI, 4.44-5.82) in the BRS group compared with 6.30 ± 2.49 mm2 (95% CI, 5.22-7.37) (P = 0.06) in the DES group. Noninferiority could not be evaluated. CSHI for both groups had a median score of 3.
Conclusion:
The DES group performed numerically better in primary and secondary endpoints, but the CSHI showed good stent healing in both groups.
