Comparable vascular response of a new generation sirolimus eluting stents when compared to fluoropolymer everolimus eluting stents in the porcine coronary restenosis model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Novel sirolimus eluting stents (SES) have shown non-inferior clinical outcomes when compared to everolimus eluting stents (EES), however only limited preclinical data have been published. Therefore, we evaluate vascular response of a new generation biodegradable polymer SES (BP-SES: Alex Plus, Balton) and fluoropolymer EES (EES: Xience Pro, Abbott) in the porcine coronary restenosis model. METHODS: A total of 40 stents were implanted with 120% overstretch in coronaries of 17 domestic swine: 16 BP-SES, 16 EES and 8 bare metal controls (BMS). Following 28 and 90 days, coronary angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed, animals sacrificed and stented segments harvested for pathological evaluation. RESULTS: At 28 days neointimal thickness in OCT was lowest in the BP-SES when compared to EES and BMS (0.18 ± 0.1 vs. 0.39 ± 0.1 vs. 0.34 ± 0.2 mm, respectively; p = 0.04). There was no difference in the proportion of malapposed or uncovered struts, although protruding covered struts were more common in BP-SES (14.8 ± 10% vs. 4.1 ± 4% vs. 3.7 ± 6%; p = 0.03). In pathology, the lowest neointimal thickness was confirmed in BP-SES (p < 0.05). The inflammation score was significantly lower in BP-SES and EES when compared to BMS (0.24 ± 0.1 vs. 0.4 ± 0.1 vs. 0.77 ± 0.4; p < 0.01) whilst EES and BP-SES had higher fibrin scores than BMS (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 1.3 ± 0.3 vs. 0.17 ± 0.2; p < 0.01). At 90 days neointimal coverage and thickness in OCT was comparable between groups and healing in histopathology was complete. CONCLUSIONS: New generation, BP-SES show similar vascular healing and biocompatibility profile with marginally higher degree of restenosis inhibition, when compared to fluoropolymer EES in the porcine coronary restenosis model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".