This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kobayashi, Y. Articles by Fitzgerald, P. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kobayashi, Y. Articles by Fitzgerald, P. J.

Long-term vessel response to a self-expanding coronary stent: a serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis from the ASSURE trial

Yoshiki Kobayashi, MD^*, Yasuhiro Honda, MD^*, Leonard G. Christie, MD, FACC, Paul S. Teirstein, MD, FACC, Steven R. Bailey, MD, FACC, Charles L. Brown, III, MD, FACC^||, Ray V. Matthews, MD, FACC^¶, Anthony C. De Franco, MD, FACC^#, Robert S. Schwartz, MD, FACC^**, Sheldon Goldberg, MD, FACC, Jeffrey J. Popma, MD, FACC, Paul G. Yock, MD, FACC^* and Peter J. Fitzgerald, MD, PhD, FACC^*

^* Center for Research in Cardiovascular Interventions, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California, USA
Cardiovascular Associates, Eugene, Oregon, USA
Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California, USA
University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA
^|| Piedmont Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
^¶ Los Angeles Cardiology Associates, Los Angeles, California, USA
^# Moses Cone Memorial Hospital, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
^** Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
Cooper Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Figure 1 Mean stent, neointimal and lumen area changes within the stented segment during the follow-up period. Notably, the RADIUS stents increased by 1.9 ± 1.0 mm2 in mean stent area while the Palmaz-Schatz stents showed no significant changes. On the other hand, the RADIUS stents had a greater amount of neointimal proliferation than the Palmaz-Schatz stents. Values are expressed as mean ± SD. Open box = Palmaz-Schatz; solid box = RADIUS.

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Figure 2 Changes in stent volume between initial deployment and follow-up in the Palmaz-Schatz group and the RADIUS group. The Palmaz-Schatz stents did not change significantly. The RADIUS stents, however, increased an average of 23.6% in volume (*p < 0.001 vs. initial). Vertical bars are mean ± SD. p < 0.001 for the stent type-by-time interaction.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Figure 3 Mean vessel, plaque and lumen area changes in the peristent margins (adjacent reference segments) during the follow-up period. The RADIUS stents minimized vessel contraction resulting in significantly less net late lumen loss compared with the Palmaz-Schatz stents (0.1 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 1.9 ± 2.4 mm2, p = 0.02). Open box = Palmaz-Schatz; solid box = RADIUS.