Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Flavius-Alexandru Gherasie
 -- 1572 2023-05-12 12:10:04 |
2 format correct
Jessie Wu
+ 2 word(s) 1574 2023-05-15 05:25:57 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Gherasie, F.; Valentin, C.; Busnatu, S. Ultrathin-Strut Stents. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44203 (accessed on 10 May 2024).
Gherasie F, Valentin C, Busnatu S. Ultrathin-Strut Stents. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44203. Accessed May 10, 2024.
Gherasie, Flavius-Alexandru, Chioncel Valentin, Stefan-Sebastian Busnatu. "Ultrathin-Strut Stents" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44203 (accessed May 10, 2024).
Gherasie, F., Valentin, C., & Busnatu, S. (2023, May 12). Ultrathin-Strut Stents. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44203
Gherasie, Flavius-Alexandru, et al. "Ultrathin-Strut Stents." Encyclopedia. Web. 12 May, 2023.
Ultrathin-Strut Stents
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jpm13050753

Studies have shown a lower risk of very late stent thrombosis with developing second-generation DESs with biocompatible and biodegradable polymers or without polymers altogether. In addition, research has indicated that thinner struts are associated with a reduced risk of intrastent restenosis and angiographic and clinical results. A drug-eluting stents (DES) with ultrathin struts (strut thickness of 70 µm) is more flexible, facilitates better tracking, and is more crossable than a conventional second-generation DES. The question is whether ultrathin eluting drug stents suit all kinds of lesions. 

eluting drug stents ultrathin-strut eluting stents stent thrombosis stent restenosis calcified coronary lesions neointimal hyperplasia

1. Introduction: From Coronary Balloon Angioplasty to Drug-Eluting Stent Interventions

Atherosclerotic plaques are responsible for developing coronary artery disease (CAD), which remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. A metallic drug-eluting stent (DES), inserted after balloon angioplasty on top of medical treatment, is frequently used to treat unstable or clinically significant coronary artery disease [1]. Andreas Gruentzig performed the first coronary angioplasty in 1977 [2]. In the early days of angioplasty, when stents were unavailable, their effectiveness was reduced by acute closure or re-stenosis. Sigwart and Puel were the first to implant a coronary stent in 1986 [3] (Palmaz-Schatz®; Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA). Initially, coronary stents were used to treat failures in balloon angioplasty treatment, such as acute vessel closure due to dissection or restenosis due to elastic recoil. Many other stents have become available since the beginning of 1990, including Wiktor® (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA), Micro® (Applied Vascular Engineering, Twickenham, UK), Cordis® (Cordis, Santa Clara, CA, USA), and MULTI-LINK® (Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Santa Clara, CA, USA) [4]. There was a reduced incidence of acute vessel closure and early elastic recoil using bare metal stents (BMSs).
However, a revolutionary paradigm was born. There was a significant risk of in-stent restenosis primarily because vascular smooth muscle cells proliferated and migrated within the device [5]. Until two landmark trials changed the trajectory of coronary PCI (percutaneous coronary interventions), stents were reserved for acute or threatened closures or restenosis following balloon angioplasty. Although there is evidence to support the superiority of BMSs over balloon angioplasty [6][7] in the Belgium Netherlands Stent Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (BENESTENT) [8] and the North American Stent Restenosis Study (STRESS) [9], it remains that 20–30% of patients experienced in-stent restenosis (ISR).
A polymer coating was used to improve the performance of coronary stents further. Compared with coronary stents without an antiproliferative drug coating, drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce neointimal hyperplasia, reducing the need for repeat revascularizations [10]. The first sirolimus-eluting stent was implanted in 1999 by Eduardo Sousa and became clinically available in 2002 as CYPHER (Cordis). Compared with BMSs, CYPHER demonstrated a significant reduction in in-stent restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Although a great step up in the evolution of PCI, it has been found that early-generation DESs are associated with an increased risk of very late stent thrombosis, probably as a result of a delayed endothelialization response to anti-restenotic drugs or a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the polymer [11][12][13]. There has been a significant development in the design of second-generation DESs with biocompatible and biodegradable polymers, or even without polymers altogether, to reduce the risk of very late stent thrombosis. Stent thrombosis is induced by the antiproliferative effect of the DES, which delays the re-endothelialization of synthetic materials. When oral antiplatelet therapy is discontinued, the exposed scaffold surface can activate platelets, resulting in late restenosis or thrombosis [14]. Restenosis caused by neointimal hyperplasia generally occurs gradually, while thrombosis caused by stents develops abruptly and can escalate to life-threatening complications. Despite its low incidence, it is associated with a high mortality rate [15].
The development of third-generation drug-eluting stents containing biodegradable rather than durable polymers was prompted by the potential for late and very late stent thrombosis and the necessity for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy associated with the durable polymer coating of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents. Apart from being made from bio-degradable polymers, most of these new stents are also made from cobalt–chromium or platinum–chromium platforms, especially in ultrathin struts, and a few have abluminal polymers.

2. The Advantages of Ultrathin-Strut Stents in Early Vessel Healing

Due to the antiproliferative drugs used in first-generation DESs, fewer patients had neointimal hyperplasia, but vascular healing was impaired, leading to late and incomplete endothelialization. On top of that, there may be a delay in recovery due to hypersensitivity reactions caused by permanent polymers. As a result, the blood flow is exposed to thrombogenic struts, which can lead to stent thrombosis [16].
In a rabbit denudation model presented by Soucy et al., strut coverage at day 14 was as high as 95% in the thinnest struts (81 μm) and lower with thicker struts: 88% in stents with 97 μm struts and 77% with 132 μm struts [17]. Based on an in vivo optical coherence tomography (OCT) study in a porcine model, the thinnest strut stent (61 μm) achieved faster and better strut coverage [18]. Endothelialization may be delayed, and the risk of restenosis increases with thicker struts due to the larger surface taking longer to endothelial. Moreover, thicker struts may contribute to more significant vessel injury and inflammation in adjacent tissue due to the penetrating struts’ traumatic disruption of the internal elastic lamina. As a result of increased intimal inflammation, neo-intimal growth and hyperplasia lead to restenosis.
The ISAR-STEREO trial demonstrated that strut thickness affects ISR rates [19]. There were 651 patients randomized to receive either a thin-strut stent (50 μm) or a comparable stent with a strut thickness of 140 μm, without a polymer or antiproliferative agent. There was almost twice as much angiographic restenosis (defined as >50% stenosis at 6-month follow-up angiography) in the thick-strut group compared with the thin-strut group (15.0% versus 25.8%, respectively).
Rittersma et al. also suggested that thinner struts are associated with a decreased risk of ISR and a reduced risk of angiographic and clinical restenosis [20].

3. The Advantages of Ultrathin-Strut Stents in Deliverability of Drug-Eluting Stents

Data on mechanical behavior during delivery of the stent is limited, even though there are numerous studies on deployment and especially in vivo function. Many different delivery systems are available for stent placement, and the deliverability is determined by pushability, trackability, and crossability [21].
Compared with conventional second-generation DESs, ultrathin struts may be more flexible, improve trackability, and have a lower profile, improving crossability [22].

4. A Negative Influence of Ultrathin Struts on the Mechanical Properties of Drug-Eluting Stents

Coronary stents should have an excellent radial force to maintain lumen patency to resist high external pressures. Generally, this pressure is around 200 mmHg in a healthy coronary artery and much more significant in a calcified lesion. It is possible to develop ISR due to failure to resist (chronic) external pressure [23]. Bonin et al. suggested that a stent’s resistance to external forces is determined by its radial stiffness, which occurs when uniform external radial forces are applied, and its radial strength, which is determined by the pressure that permanently deforms the stent [21]. As a result of its higher elastic modulus and tensile strength, cobalt–chromium has a higher radial strength than stainless steel, thereby allowing thinner struts to be used without sacrificing radial strength.
The majority of contemporary stents are modular, consisting of undulated rings. These rings are connected by connectors, which provide longitudinal support to the stent. In coronary stent design, the number and orientation of connectors between rings play a critical role in determining mechanical properties. Compared with an open-cell structure, closed-cell designs (more connectors) provide better vessel wall coverage and are likely to prevent plaque prolapse [24]. Several authors reported that improved coverage with less thrombus protrusion reduced the risk of distal embolization in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) [25].
Open-cell designs, however, are more flexible, deliverable, and conformable than closed-cell designs. A further advantage of these devices is that they facilitate more accessible access to side branches in cases of bifurcation lesions.
There is a possibility that a stent may recoil due to low radial strength. Acute stent recoil leads to residual stenosis and repeated artery revascularization [26][27][28]. According to an observational study conducted on 128 patients who underwent PCI for chronic total occlusions (CTOs), the ultrathin-strut Orsiro stent was associated with higher absolute (measured in millimeters) and relative (measured in percent) recoil than the Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent with 81 μm struts (Medtronic Cardiovascular, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) [27].
Teeuwen et al. demonstrated in the randomized PRISON IV trial, which compared the Orsiro stent with the Xience stent in CTO patients, that the Orsiro ultrathin stent failed to prove non-inferiority in terms of in-segment late lumen loss and did show statistically higher rates of restenosis [29].
Overall, radial strength is determined by the type of metal used, the strut’s thickness, and the stent’s design. While cobalt–chromium and platinum–chromium alloy struts have comparable radial strength to stainless steel struts, some clinical data indicate that the radial strength of ultrathin-strut stents may not be sufficient to treat CTO lesions and may result in a more significant stent recoil than conventional second-generation DESs. Different manufacturers are developing ultrathin-strut stents. Table 1 reviews the most commonly used features [22].
Table 1. A brief research of mainly used ultrathin-strut stents.
Stent Name Orsiro Biomime CoroFlex IsarNeo Supraflex Evermine 50 MiStent
Company Biotronik Merril B.Braun SMT Meril Micell
Material Cobalt-chromium Cobalt-chromium Cobalt-chromium Cobalt-chromium Cobalt-chromium Cobalt-chromium
Strut thickness (μm) 60 65 55 60 50 64
Coating distribution Circumferential Circumferential - Circumferential Circumferential Circumferential
Polymer Biodegradable Biodegradable Polymer free Biodegradable Biodegradable Biodegradable
Eluting drug Sirolimus Sirolimus Sirolimus Sirolimus Everolimus Sirolimus
Drug dose 1.4 μg/mm2 1.25 μg/mm2 1.2 μg/mm2 1.4 μg/mm2 1.25 μg/mm2 2.4 μg/mm2
Drug release 50% by 1 month
80% by 3 months		 30–40 days 80% by 28 days
100% by 90 days		 70% by 1 week
100% by 3–4 months		 30–40 days 9 months

References

  1. Nicolas, J.; Pivato, C.A.; Chiarito, M.; Beerkens, F.; Cao, D.; Mehran, R. Evolution of Drug-Eluting Coronary Stents: A Back-and-Forth Journey from the Bench to Bedside. Cardiovasc. Res. 2022, 1–16.
  2. Grüntzig, A. Transluminal dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis. Lancet 1978, 311, 263.
  3. Weiss, A.J.; Lorente-Ros, M.; Correa, A.; Barman, N.; Tamis-Holland, J.E. Recent Advances in Stent Technology: Do They Reduce Cardiovascular Events? Curr. Atheroscler. Rep. 2022, 24, 731–744.
  4. Korei, N.; Solouk, A.; Haghbin Nazarpak, M.; Nouri, A. A Review on Design Characteristics and Fabrication Methods of Metallic Cardiovascular Stents. Mater. Today Commun. 2022, 31, 103467.
  5. Ullrich, H.; Olschewski, M.; Münzel, T.; Gori, T. Koronare In-Stent-Restenose: Prädiktoren Und Therapie. Dtsch. Ärzteblatt Int. 2021, 118, 637–644.
  6. Khan, S.Q.; Ludman, P.F. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Medicine 2022, 50, 437–444.
  7. Strauss, B.H.; Tanguay, J.F.; Picard, F.; Doucet, S.; Morice, M.C.; Elbaz-Greener, G. Coronary Stenting: Reflections on a 35-Year Journey. Can. J. Cardiol. 2022, 38, S17–S29.
  8. Macaya, C.; Serruys, P.W.; Ruygrok, P.; Suryapranata, H.; Mast, G.; Klugmann, S.; Urban, P.; den Heijer, P.; Koch, K.; Simon, R.; et al. Continued Benefit of Coronary Stenting versus Balloon Angioplasty: One-Year Clinical Follow-up of Benestent Trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1996, 27, 255–261.
  9. George, C.J.; Baim, D.S.; Brinker, J.A.; Fischman, D.L.; Goldberg, S.; Holubkov, R.; Kennard, E.D.; Veltri, L.; Detre, K.M. One-Year Follow-up of the Stent Restenosis (STRESS I) Study. Am. J. Cardiol. 1998, 81, 860–865.
  10. Koźlik, M.K.; Harpula, J.; Chuchra, P.J.; Nowak, M.; Wojakowski, W.; Asior, P.G. Drug-Eluting Stents: Technical and Clinical Progress. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 72.
  11. Daemen, J.; Wenaweser, P.; Tsuchida, K.; Abrecht, L.; Vaina, S.; Morger, C.; Kukreja, N.; Jüni, P.; Sianos, G.; Hellige, G.; et al. Early and Late Coronary Stent Thrombosis of Sirolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Routine Clinical Practice: Data from a Large Two-Institutional Cohort Study. Lancet 2007, 369, 667–678.
  12. Lagerqvist, B.; Carlsson, J.; Fröbert, O.; Lindbäck, J.; Scherstén, F.; Stenestrand, U.; James, S.K. Stent Thrombosis in Sweden. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2009, 2, 401–408.
  13. Laskey, W.K.; Yancy, C.W.; Maisel, W.H. Thrombosis in Coronary Drug-Eluting Stents. Circulation 2007, 115, 2352–2357.
  14. Wang, L.; Li, X.; Li, T.; Liu, L.; Wang, H.; Wang, C. Novel Application of Drug-Coated Balloons in Coronary Heart Disease: A Narrative Review. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2023, 10, 1055274.
  15. Watts, T.E.; Chatterjee, A.; Leesar, M.A. Stent Thrombosis: Early, Late, and Very Late. In Cardiovascular Thrombus: From Pathology and Clinical Presentations to Imaging, Pharmacotherapy and Interventions; University of Alabama at Birmingham: Birmingham, AL, USA, 2018; pp. 217–224.
  16. Kuramitsu, S.; Sonoda, S.; Ando, K.; Otake, H.; Natsuaki, M.; Anai, R.; Honda, Y.; Kadota, K.; Kobayashi, Y.; Kimura, T. Drug-Eluting Stent Thrombosis: Current and Future Perspectives. Cardiovasc. Interv. Ther. 2021, 36, 158–168.
  17. Soucy, N.V.; Feygin, J.M.; Tunstall, R.; Casey, M.A.; Pennington, D.E.; Huibregtse, B.A.; Barry, J.J. Strut Tissue Coverage and Endothelial Cell Coverage: A Comparison between Bare Metal Stent Platforms and Platinum Chromium Stents with and without Everolimus-Eluting Coating. EuroIntervention 2010, 6, 630–637.
  18. Kolandaivelu, K.; Swaminathan, R.; Gibson, W.J.; Kolachalama, V.B.; Nguyen-Ehrenreich, K.L.; Giddings, V.L.; Coleman, L.; Wong, G.K.; Edelman, E.R. Stent Thrombogenicity Early in High-Risk Interventional Settings Is Driven by Stent Design and Deployment and Protected by Polymer-Drug Coatings. Circulation 2011, 123, 1400–1409.
  19. Kastrati, A.; Mehilli, J.; Dirschinger, J.; Dotzer, F.; Schühlen, H.; Neumann, F.J.; Fleckenstein, M.; Pfafferott, C.; Seyfarth, M.; Schömig, A. Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Strut Thickness Effect on Restenosis Outcome (ISAR-STEREO) Trial. Circulation 2001, 103, 2816–2821.
  20. Rittersma, S.Z.H.; de Winter, R.J.; Koch, K.T.; Bax, M.; Schotborgh, C.E.; Mulder, K.J.; Tijssen, J.G.P.; Piek, J.J. Impact of Strut Thickness on Late Luminal Loss after Coronary Artery Stent Placement. Am. J. Cardiol. 2004, 93, 477–480.
  21. Bonin, M.; Guerin, P.; Olive, J.M.; Jordana, F.; Huchet, F. Standardized Bench Test Evaluation of Coronary Stents: Biomechanical Characteristics. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 92, E465–E470.
  22. Leone, A.; Simonetti, F.; Avvedimento, M.; Angellotti, D.; Immobile Molaro, M.; Franzone, A.; Esposito, G.; Piccolo, R. Ultrathin Struts Drug-Eluting Stents: A State-of-the-Art Review. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1378.
  23. Hong, M.K.; Park, S.W.; Lee, C.W.; Ko, J.Y.; Kang, D.H.; Song, J.K.; Kim, J.J.; Hoffmann, R.; Mintz, G.S.; Park, S.J. Intravascular Ultrasound Comparison of Chronic Recoil among Different Stent Designs. Am. J. Cardiol. 1999, 84, 1247–1250.
  24. Schmidt, T.; Abbott, J.D. Coronary Stents: History, Design, and Construction. J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7, 126.
  25. Kumar, R.; Qayyum, D.; Ahmed, I.; Rai, L.; Mir, A.; Awan, R.; Naseer, A.B.; Basit, A.; Sial, J.A.; Saghir, T.; et al. Predilation Ballooning in High Thrombus Laden STEMIs: An Independent Predictor of Slow Flow/No-Reflow in Patients Undergoing Emergent Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization. J. Interv. Cardiol. 2023, 2023, 4012361.
  26. Sato, T.; Goto, S.; Yuasa, S.; Akazawa, K.; Aizawa, Y. Predictors and Outcomes of Acute Recoil after Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Implantation: An Intravascular Ultrasound in Native Coronary Arteries. Coron. Artery Dis. 2022, 31, 18–24.
  27. Improta, R.; Scarparo, P.; Wilschut, J.; Wolff, Q.; Daemen, J.; Den Dekker, W.K.; Zijlstra, F.; Van Mieghem, N.M.; Diletti, R. Elastic Stent Recoil in Coronary Total Occlusions: Comparison of Durable-Polymer Zotarolimus Eluting Stent and Ultrathin Strut Bioabsorbable-Polymer Sirolimus Eluting Stent. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2022, 99, 88–97.
  28. Cockerill, I.; See, C.W.; Young, M.L.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, D. Designing Better Cardiovascular Stent Materials: A Learning Curve. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2005361.
  29. Teeuwen, K.; van der Schaaf, R.J.; Adriaenssens, T.; Koolen, J.J.; Smits, P.C.; Henriques, J.P.S.; Vermeersch, P.H.M.J.; Tjon Joe Gin, R.M.; Schölzel, B.E.; Kelder, J.C.; et al. Randomized Multicenter Trial Investigating Angiographic Outcomes of Hybrid Sirolimus-Eluting Stents With Biodegradable Polymer Compared With Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Chronic Total Occlusions: The PRISON IV Trial. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017, 10, 133–143.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Flavius-Alexandru Gherasie
,
Chioncel Valentin
,
Stefan-Sebastian Busnatu
View Times: 325
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 15 May 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback