This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) View Related Interventions with a King on CVN 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 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 Waksman, R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Waksman, R.

Early- and Long-Term Intravascular Ultrasound and Angiographic Findings After Bioabsorbable Magnesium Stent Implantation in Human Coronary Arteries

Ron Waksman, MD^_*,_*, Raimund Erbel, MD, Carlo Di Mario, MD, Jozef Bartunek, MD, Bernard de Bruyne, MD, Franz R. Eberli, MD^||, Paul Erne, MD^¶, Michael Haude, MD, MS, Mark Horrigan, MD^_**, Charles Ilsley, MD, Dirk Böse, MD, Hans Bonnier, MD^#, Jacques Koolen, MD^#, Thomas F. Lüscher, MD^||, Neil J. Weissman, MD^_* on behalf of the PROGRESS-AMS (Clinical Performance Angiographic Results of Coronary Stenting with Absorbable Metal Stents) Investigators

^_* Division of Cardiology, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC
West-German Heart Center Essen, Department of Cardiology, Essen, Germany
Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Centre, Aalst, Belgium
^|| Division of Cardiology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
^¶ Cardiology Department, Kantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland
^# Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands
^_** Cardiology Department, Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre, Victoria, Melbourne, Australia

	Abstract

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

 
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the degradation rate and long-term vascular responses to the absorbable metal stent (AMS).

Background: The AMS demonstrated feasibility and safety at 4 months in human coronary arteries.

Methods: The PROGRESS-AMS (Clinical Performance and Angiographic Results of Coronary Stenting) was a prospective, multicenter clinical trial of 63 patients with coronary artery disease who underwent AMS implantation. Angiography and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) were conducted immediately after AMS deployment and at 4 months. Eight patients who did not require repeat revascularization at 4 months underwent late angiographic and IVUS follow-up from 12 to 28 months.

Results: The AMS was well-expanded upon deployment without immediate recoil. The major contributors for restenosis as detected by IVUS at 4 months were: decrease of external elastic membrane volume (42%), extra-stent neointima (13%), and intra-stent neointima (45%). From 4 months to late follow-up, paired IVUS analysis demonstrated complete stent degradation with durability of the 4-month IVUS indexes. The neointima was reduced by 3.6 ± 5.2 mm³, with an increase in the stent cross sectional area of 0.5 ± 1.0 mm² (p = NS). The median in-stent minimal lumen diameter was increased from 1.87 to 2.17 mm at long-term follow-up. The median angiographic late loss was reduced from 0.62 to 0.40 mm by quantitative coronary angiography from 4 months to late follow-up.

Conclusions: Intravascular ultrasound imaging supports the safety profile of AMS with degradation at 4 months and maintains durability of the results without any early or late adverse findings. Slower degradation is warranted to provide sufficient radial force to improve long-term patency rates of the AMS.

Key Words: bioabsorbable magnesium stent • intravascular ultrasound • neointima • recoil

Abbreviations and Acronyms   AMS = absorbable metal stent(s)   BMS = bare-metal stent(s)   CSA = cross sectional area   DES = drug-eluting stent(s)   DS = diameter stenosis   EEM = external elastic membrane   IVUS = intravascular ultrasound   LLL = late lumen loss   MLD = minimum lumen diameter

Absorbable metal stents (AMS) were designed to overcome these drawbacks. Animal experiments demonstrated complete and rapid re-endothelialization, low neointima proliferation, and less inflammation when compared with metallic stents (14,15). The AMS are not associated with any imaging artifact with CT or MRI (16,17). The AMS initial clinical experience was in tibial arteries and demonstrated an excellent safety profile and acceptable patency rates at 24 months (18,19). This led to the initiation of the first trial to treat human coronary lesions with AMS, named PROGRESS-AMS (Clinical Performance and Angiographic Results of Coronary Stenting with Absorbable Metal Stents) (20).

The PROGRESS-AMS study demonstrated that biodegradable magnesium stents can be implanted safely and that the stents degraded as intended without stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, or death at 1 year (20). However, the study was associated with high angiographic restenosis rates of in-stent diameter stenosis (DS) (48.2 ± 17.0%) and in-segment late loss (0.83 ± 0.51 mm), which led to ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization of 23.8% at 4 months and 27.9% at 1 year. The objective of this study was to evaluate the mechanisms that contributed to restenosis of the AMS and the long-term arterial responses both inside and outside the stent as long as 28 months after implantation of the AMS by using serial quantitative angiographic and IVUS analysis in event-free patients.

	Methods

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

 
The PROGRESS-AMS clinical trial was designed as a nonrandomized, prospective, multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an absorbable magnesium alloy stent (BIOTRONIK AG, Zurich, Switzerland) (20). The magnesium AMS geometrical design and mechanical properties have been described previously (14–17).

The methodology of the PROGRESS study was published previously (20). In brief, 63 patients in 8 centers with anginal symptoms and single de novo lesions with reference vessel diameters of 3.0 to 3.5 mm and lesion lengths 15 mm in native coronaries were enrolled. Seventy-one stents, 10 to 15 mm in length and 3.0 to 3.5 mm in diameter, were successfully implanted after pre-dilation in 63 patients.

IVUS analysis.   Intravascular ultrasound was performed in 52 patients with a mechanical rotating element 40-MHz transducer (Atlantis IVUS catheter and Galaxy II console, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) and in 13 patients from 2 centers with a synthetic aperture electronic system 20 MHz (Eagle Eye, Volcano, Rancho Cordova, California) with acquisition started after activation of a motorized pullback at 0.5 mm/s. All patients underwent angiographic and IVUS follow-up at 4 months. Nine patients underwent late IVUS follow-up (study ranges from 12 to 28 months). Computerized planimetry measured the reference segment external elastic membrane (EEM), stent, and lumen every millimeter within the stent. Neointima was calculated as stent minus lumen measures, whereas volumes were calculated by the summation of areas. Qualitative and quantitative IVUS assessment was performed by an independent core laboratory (Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC). The IVUS characteristics were identified according to the criteria of the American College of Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus document on the IVUS examinations performed before and after stenting and at follow-up (21). Quantitative measurements included EEM area, luminal area, and plaque and media area, which at follow-up could be further divided into neointimal area inside the stent struts and original plaque outside. The proximal and distal reference segments selected for analysis had the most normal-looking cross-section within 10 mm proximal and distal to the lesion. The average of the proximal and distal reference EEM and lumen cross sectional area (CSA) were used to assess stent expansion, defined as: minimal stent CSA/reference lumen CSA x 100 (21). Stent malapposition was defined as a lack of contact between any stent strut and the underlying vessel wall (22).

Long-term angiographic and IVUS analysis.   The study protocol was amended to include late angiographic and IVUS long-term follow-up, to further evaluate the natural history of vascular responses to the AMS. Of the initial 63 patients, 9 patients without any clinical events, including revascularization, through the 28-month follow-up with serial (after procedure, 4-month, and late follow-up [12 to 28 months]) and analyzable IVUS data were selected for this substudy.

Quantitative IVUS and angiographic analysis.   The quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) analyses were performed by an independent core laboratory (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands). The serial IVUS (after procedure, 4-month, and late follow-up) procedures were performed after administration of 200 µg intracoronary nitroglycerin with an automated pullback at 0.5 mm/s. All IVUS procedures were recorded on VHS videotape, and the images were digitized for analysis. Two coronary segments were subjected to coronary angiography: in-stent and -lesion. The in-stent analysis encompassed only the 10- to 15-mm-long segment covered by the stent. The in-lesion segment was defined as the stent plus 5 mm proximal and 5 mm distal to the edge or the nearest side branch. In-stent and in-lesion restenosis were defined as 50% DS at follow-up within the stent and target lesion, respectively. Minimum lumen diameter (MLD) and percent DS were measured for each segment. In-stent late lumen loss (LLL) was calculated as post-procedural MLD minus follow-up MLD. Intimal hyperplasia volume was calculated as stent volume minus luminal volume. Percent intimal hyperplasia was defined as intimal hyperplasia volume/stent volume.

Statistics.   Descriptive statistics reported mean values, SD or median, and range for continuous data sets and absolute and relative frequencies for categorical data. Comparisons between the same measurements at different time points were performed with a 2-tailed paired t test or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A probability value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The SAS 9.1 software (SAS, Cary, North Carolina) was used.

	Results

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

 
Patients and procedural characteristics.   The patient and procedural characteristics for the group that had serial (after the procedure, at 4 months, and at late follow-up) IVUS examinations compared with the entire PROGRESS study cohort are displayed in Table 1. Comparable baseline demographic and angiographic data indicate that the data in the serial IVUS cohorts are representative of the overall randomized study population (Tables 1 and 2).

View larger version (83K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1 Absorbable Metal Stent After Implantation and at 4 Months' Follow-Up Intravascular ultrasound imaging after implantation and at 4 months' follow-up, demonstrating adequate expansion and apposition of the stents to the vessel wall and degradation of the thick struts seen immediately after implantation over the 4 months of the follow-up.

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 2 Mechanism of Absorbable Metal Stent Restenosis Mechanism of absorbable metal stent restenosis, demonstrating the relative contribution of the components of restenosis: stent recoil and neointima within the stent (intra-stent) and outside of the stent (extra-stent).

View larger version (69K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 3 Complete Degradation of Absorbable Metal Stent at 4 and 16 Months Serial intravascular ultrasound imaging after implantation, at 4 and 16 months, demonstrating degradation of the struts with preservation of the lumen.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 4 Intravascular Ultrasound Indexes of Absorbable Metal Stent From Index Through Long-Term Follow-Up Intravascular ultrasound indexes at 4 months through long-term follow-up (FU) demonstrating durability of the results from 4 months to late follow-up. CSA = cross sectional area; IH = intimal hyperplasia.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

Early IVUS findings after AMS implantation.   The IVUS imaging immediately after AMS implantation detected thick struts with adequate expansion and apposition of the stent to the vessel wall. Post-balloon dilation to optimize the deployment results was required in 42 patients (66.7%), which is an acceptable rate for stent technology. Despite this fact, the mean stent CSA of the AMS after implantation was 6.2 ± 1.5 mm², which is lower than the minimum CSA of nondegradable metallic stents reported previously with bare metal stents (BMS) for similar vessel sizes (3.0 to 3.5 mm). In the Taxus II (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) study, the BMS minimum CSA was 8.1 ± 2.5 mm² (23). The AMS stent volume after implantation was 116.5 ± 40.2 mm³, which is lower when compared with the stent volume of the BMS in the Taxus IV study (151 ± 56 mm³). Thus, the initial implantation of the AMS has less expansion and less stent volume when compared with stainless steel metallic stents (24). These differences might result from differences in the radial force, which is lower in the magnesium when compared with the stainless steel alloy, by immediate recoil after implantation as seen at post-balloon angioplasty or by a combination of the two. These IVUS results are concordant with the angiographic QCA results, which measured in-stent MLD immediately after stenting as 2.47 ± 0.37 mm, whereas the reference vessel was measured at 2.74 ± 0.42 mm. Because the angiographic elastic recoil after implantation was calculated only as 7 ± 15%, it is probable that differences between the historical reported lumen volume and the AMS lumen volume are mainly due to differences in stent expansion due to the weakness of the magnesium alloy when compared with stainless steel or cobalt chromium. This suggests that, when implanting AMS, the "bigger the better" lumen theory on implantation is applicable and the focus should be on obtaining larger lumen perhaps by post-dilation with semi-compliant balloons.

IVUS findings of the AMS from implantation up to 4 months.   The main findings at this time frame suggest that early recoil with 42% reduction in EEM is a major contributor for the LLL and restenosis. This reduction in EEM, which is not seen in nondegradable metallic stents, can be attributed to early and fast degradation and loss of the radial force, perhaps even few weeks after AMS implantation. An IVUS study in 1 patient who was brought to an earlier study at 3 weeks after implantation due to atypical chest pain indicated that the nearly 50% of the stent struts were degraded, thus suggesting a degradation rate immediately after AMS implantation faster than initially expected. Although the patient did not experience compromised lumen or stent malapposition at that early time point, restenosis was detected at 4 months—mainly due to recoil. Thus, it is conceivable that the early and fast degradation of the stent mass significantly weakened the radial force of the stent and could be the main cause for the early vessel recoil that does not have enough stent support to prevent early and late vessel contraction as part of the vessel's healing process.

The question of how long we need the stent to support the vessel wall after deployment has never been convincingly answered. With BMS, endothelialization is nearly complete at 1 month, but does that mean that stent scaffolding is not needed beyond this time point? In the present study the stent was nearly completely degraded at 4 months, but the question is how much of the stent was degraded at 1 month and whether there was enough radial support at 1 month to prevent recoil. Thus the question with bioabsorbable stents should not focus only on the overall degradation time but on the rate of degradation or the degradation kinetics. Very early and fast degradation will result in loss of radial force within weeks or days and could lead to early recoil. Because we did not observe further recoil from 4 months up to 28 months we can assume that there is no need for further scaffolding beyond 4 months and, hence, degradation times beyond this point. To address the recoil phenomenon seen with the AMS, several approaches can be taken to modify the overall degradation and the degradation rate; among them are change in the alloy composition, change in stent design and strut thickness, and passivation technology, and the like. The neointima formation component of the restenosis seen with AMS was modest when compared with previous studies with BMS. The intimal volume of the AMS at 4 months (20.4 ± 14.4 mm³) was less than that reported for the Express stent at 9 months (41 ± 23 mm³) but still higher when compared with the Taxus stent at 9 months (18 ± 18 mm³) (24). The relatively lower neointima in the AMS compared with BMS technology could be explained by the fact that the stent is degraded with a decrease in strut thickness and elimination of the stent, therefore, the trigger for neointima formation is gone. These lower indexes on neointima rule out a massive inflammatory process during the degradation process. Although the time frame is different, given the fact that there was no more neointima formation reported in the AMS group after 4 months, it is possible that if the recoil phenomenon was eliminated from the equation, the AMS could compete with the Taxus stent in terms of restenosis. The question remains as to whether the recoil can be eliminated and, if so, at what price.

One of the questions with bioabsorbable stents is related to their degradation products and what is left on the arterial wall. Prior animal studies with the AMS demonstrated a compound including phosphate and calcium in the vessel wall (15), leading to reflections seen by IVUS, but unlike the metallic struts, they are seen without shadows, which help to differentiate this material from metal. Overall, there was some variability in degradation, because it was completed 4 times in all patients, but no documented distal embolization was seen in any of the patients. Furthermore, at longer follow-up, the reflections were not detected, which ruled out late calcifications after degradation of the AMS.

IVUS findings of the AMS after 4 months.   The long-term angiogram and IVUS observations up to 28 months in 8 patients who did not experience an event at 4 months reassured us that there is no late development of neointima formation or late recoil beyond the 4 months' time point. On the contrary, in some patients there was evidence of regression in the neointima, and in some patients we observed an increase in vessel and lumen volume by IVUS. This was supported by the QCA analysis that demonstrated overall negative late loss at the previously stented segment. Finally there was no other IVUS or angiographic adverse findings, including evidence of calcifications or aneurysms, at the previously stented segments, including the edges.

The stability and durability of the results after 4 months when the AMS reached complete degradation suggests that with AMS perhaps 4-month results can predict the long-term outcome of the vessel and its edges. If this is true, it is different from the BMS or DES that require much longer time for follow-up until stability is obtained. This difference can be explained by the nearly complete degradation of the AMS at 4 months.

The present study used the AMS without drug elution from the stent and resulted in higher restenosis, which was anticipated due to unexpected recoil phenomenon, most likely resulting from an early loss of radial support. An animal study using vascular brachytherapy with beta radiation as adjunct therapy to AMS implantation in porcine coronary arteries demonstrated a reduction in the neointima formation but did not have an impact on the recoil after 30 days of stent implantation (25). Therefore, it is likely that a drug-eluting AMS with the current alloy and stent design would probably not have impacted the recoil phenomenon but would have reduced the neointima formation as reported in the bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting stent, which demonstrated LLL (0.44 mm) (26) compared with the BMS (0.87 mm) but higher late loss when compared with the Xience (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois) stent (0.10 mm) with the same drug (27). Therefore, to reduce the recurrence rate with the AMS, efforts should be directed first to improve its mechanical integrity. This can be done by changing the alloy composition and the stent design and perhaps by means of passivation that will slow the initial degradation kinetics. Drug elution might further contribute to a reduction of the neointima and to acceptable late loss and restenosis rates. The comforting results of the present study are that once this goal is obtained there will be durability and stability of the results over the first months after implantation.

Study limitations.   The current observation is limited to a small cohort of patients who were enrolled in the first feasibility study with AMS. An even smaller number of patients were available for the later angiographic and IVUS follow-up time points. In addition, the late follow-up was not consistent and ranged from 12 to 28 months. Nevertheless, the IVUS findings available after implantation and at follow-up and the late angiographic and IVUS availability at later time points enabled us to understand the current behavior, benefits, and limitations of this technology and assist in the planning of an improved version of the AMS to be tested in the future.

	Conclusions

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

 
IVUS imaging of the AMS in human coronaries identified early recoil as a main contributor for restenosis at 4 months. Late IVUS imaging supports the safety profile of AMS—with nearly complete degradation at 4 months and durability of the results without any early or late adverse findings. Efforts to improve the radial force of the stent and the degradation kinetics are warranted to eliminate early recoil and improved patency rates of the AMS when absorption is complete. Drug elution of the AMS might be mandatory to minimize the neointima formation and to maintain sufficient lumen, if the recoil component remains despite the planned iterations in the AMS technology.

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Ron Waksman, Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving Street, Northwest, Suite 4B-1, Washington, DC 20010 (Email: ron.waksman{at}medstar.net).

Manuscript received September 14, 2008; accepted September 29, 2008.

	REFERENCES

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

 

1. Schatz RA, Baim DS, Leon M, et al. Clinical experience with the Palmaz-Schatz coronary stent. Initial results of a multicenter study. Circulation 1991;83:148-161.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Sigwart U, Puel J, Mirkovitch V, Joffre F, Kappenberger L. Intravascular stents to prevent occlusion and restenosis after transluminal angioplasty N Engl J Med 1987;316:701-706.[Web of Science][Medline]
3. Serruys PW, de Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, et al. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group. N Engl J Med 1994;331:489-495.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
4. Colombo A, Ferraro M, Itoh A, Martini G, Blengino S, Finci L. Results of coronary stenting for restenosis J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:830-836.[Abstract]
5. Beohar N, Robbins JD, Cavanaugh BJ, et al. Quantitative assessment of in-stent dimensions: a comparison of 64 and 16 detector multislice computed tomography to intravascular ultrasound Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;68:8-10.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
6. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. RAVEL Study Group Randomized study with the sirolimus-coated Bx velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions N Engl J Med 2002;346:1773-1780.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. SIRIUS Investigators Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery N Engl J Med 2003;349:1315-1323.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
8. Grube E, Silber S, Hauptmann KE, et al. TAXUS I: six- and twelve-month results from a randomized, double-blind trial on a slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent for de novo coronary lesions Circulation 2003;107:38-42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Fajadet J, Morice MC, Bode C, et al. Maintenance of long-term clinical benefit with sirolimus-eluting coronary stents: three year results of the RAVEL trial Circulation 2005;111:1040-1044.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Joner M, Finn AV, Farb A, et al. Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:193-202.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Nebeker JR, Virmani R, Bennett CL, et al. Hypersensitivity cases associated with drug-eluting coronary stents: a review of available cases from the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:175-181.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Nordmann AJ, Briel M, Bucher HC. Mortality in randomized controlled trials comparing drug-eluting vs. bare metal stents in coronary artery disease: a metaanalysis Eur Heart J 2006;27:2784-2814.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Hofma SH, van der Giessen WJ, van Dalen BM, et al. Indication of long-term endothelial dysfunction after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation Eur Heart J 2006;27:166-170.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Heublein B, Rohde R, Kaese V, Niemeyer M, Hartung W, Haverich A. Biocorrosion of magnesium alloys: a new principle in cardiovascular implant technology? Heart 2003;89:651-656.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Waksman R, Pakala R, Kuchulakanti PK, et al. Safety and efficacy of bioabsorbable magnesium alloy stents in porcine coronary arteries Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;68:607-617.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
16. Lind AY, Eggebrecht H, Erbel R. Images in cardiology: the invisible stent: imaging of an absorbable metal stent with multislice spiral computed tomography Heart 2005;91:1604.[Free Full Text]
17. Eggebrecht H, Rodermann J, Hunold P, et al. Images in cardiovascular medicine. Novel magnetic resonance-compatible coronary stent: the absorbable magnesium-alloy stent. Circulation 2005;112:e303-e304.[Free Full Text]
18. Peeters P, Bosiers M, Verbist J, Deloose K, Heublein B. Preliminary results after application of absorbable metal stents in patients with critical limb ischemia J Endovasc Ther 2005;12:1-5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
19. Di Mario C, Griffiths H, Goktekin O, et al. Drug-eluting bioabsorbable magnesium stent J Interv Cardiol 2004;17:391-395.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Erbel R, Di Mario C, Bartunek J, et al. PROGRESS-AMS (Clinical Performance and Angiographic Results of Coronary Stenting with Absorbable Metal Stents) Investigators Temporary scaffolding of coronary arteries with bioabsorbable magnesium stents: a prospective, non-randomised multicentre trial Lancet 2007;369:1869-1875.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
21. Mintz GS, Nissen SE, Anderson WD, et al. American College of Cardiology clinical expert consensus document on standards for acquisition, measurement and reporting of intravascular ultrasound studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1478-1492.[Free Full Text]
22. Mintz GS, Shah VM, Weissman NJ. Regional remodeling as the cause of late stent malapposition Circulation 2003;107:2660-2663.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Tsuchida K, Serruys PW, Bruining N, et al. Two-year serial coronary angiographic and intravascular ultrasound analysis of in-stent angiographic late lumen loss and ultrasonic neointimal volume from the TAXUS II trial Am J Cardiol 2007;99:607-615.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
24. Weissman NJ, Koglin J, Cox DA, et al. Polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents reduce in-stent neointimal tissue proliferation: a serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis from the TAXUS-IV trial J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1201-1205.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Waksman R, Pakala R, Okabe T, et al. Efficacy and safety of absorbable metallic stents with adjunct intracoronary beta radiation in porcine coronary arteries J Interv Cardiol 2007;20:367-372.[CrossRef][Medline]
26. Ormiston JA, Serruys PW, Regar E, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB): a prospective open-label trial Lancet 2008;371:899-907.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
27. Serruys PW, Ong A, Piek JJ, et al. A randomized comparison of a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent with a bare metal coronary stent Eurointervention 2005;1:58-65.[Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Brugaletta, J. Gomez-Lara, P. W. Serruys, V. Farooq, R. J. van Geuns, L. Thuesen, D. Dudek, J. Koolen, B. Chevalier, D. McClean, et al. Serial In Vivo Intravascular Ultrasound-Based Echogenicity Changes of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold During the First 12 Months After Implantation: Insights From the ABSORB B Trial J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., December 1, 2011; 4(12): 1281 - 1289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. W. Serruys, Y. Onuma, D. Dudek, P. C. Smits, J. Koolen, B. Chevalier, B. de Bruyne, L. Thuesen, D. McClean, R.-J. van Geuns, et al. Evaluation of the Second Generation of a Bioresorbable Everolimus-Eluting Vascular Scaffold for the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Stenosis: 12-Month Clinical and Imaging Outcomes J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 4, 2011; 58(15): 1578 - 1588. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Garg and P. W. Serruys Coronary Stents: Looking Forward J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 31, 2010; 56(10_Suppl_S): S43 - S78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Muller, N. J. Weissman, and E. M. Tuzcu The Year in Intracoronary Imaging J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., August 1, 2010; 3(8): 881 - 891. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. R. Dixon, C. L. Grines, and W. W. O'Neill The Year in Interventional Cardiology J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 18, 2010; 55(20): 2272 - 2286. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) View Related Interventions with a King on CVN 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 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 Waksman, R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Waksman, R.