19. Paradies V, Maurina M, Tonino P, Hofma SH, Vos J, van Kuijk JP, Oemrawsingh RM, Mafragi AA, Spano F, Pisters R, Polad J, Ijsselmuiden S, Cambero MM, Smits PC.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.08.046
Abstract
Background
Up to 45% of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may have a high bleeding risk (HBR), depending on the bleeding risk definition.1 This condition is often associated with an enhanced risk of thrombotic events with a negative impact on short- and long-term outcomes,2–8 making the choice of an appropriate antithrombotic regimen after PCI particularly challenging.
Advances in stent technologies, in which the introduction of newer generations of thinner strut drug-eluting stents (DES), have significantly reduced the rate of thrombotic complications and may justify a shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration. Both in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that local hemodynamic factors may critically affect the natural history of atherosclerosis. Strut thickness correlates with flow disturbances and endothelial shear stress. Flow separation within struts determines areas of recirculation with low endothelial shear stress which promotes local concentration of activated platelets.9
By mitigating inflammation, vessel injury, and neointimal proliferation, thin and streamlined struts have been associated with faster vascular healing and re-endothelization and have resulted in lower rates of thrombotic events after PCI.10,11
The use of thin strut and ultra-thin strut stents may lead to a favorable trade-off in bleeding and ischemic events in patients with HBR. However, dedicated studies evaluating the performance of thin strut versus ultrathin strut stents in patients with HBR are lacking.
Learn more about the study: COMPARE HBR 60-80 : Supraflex Cruz stent compared to Ultimaster Tansei stent in PCI | CERC
ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04500912
