4.5 Article

First-in-Man Trial of SiO2 Inert-Coated Bare Metal Stent System in Native Coronary Stenosis - The AXETIS FIM Trial

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 82, Issue 2, Pages 477-+

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-17-0337

Keywords

First-in-man trial; Optical coherence tomography; Optimal stent implantation criteria; Prematurely terminated clinical trial; SiO2 inert-coated stent

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A novel bare metal stent with an SiO2 coating was developed to prevent excessive neointimal hyperplasia by inertization of the metallic stent surface. The efficacy of the device was demonstrated in a preclinical model. The aim of this first-in-man trial was to assess the safety and feasibility of the new device. Methods and Results: This prospective non-randomized single-arm trial was designed to enroll 35 patients with a de novo coronary lesion. Quantitative coronary angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were performed at the baseline procedure and at the 6-month follow-up. Stent implantation was performed with OCT guidance according to optimal stent implantation criteria. The trial was terminated upon the advice of the data safety monitoring board after enrolling 14 patients due to the high incidence of re-intervention. Optimal OCT implantation criteria were achieved in only 8.3% of lesions. At 6 months, angiographic in-stent late lumen loss as the primary endpoint was 0.77 +/- 0.44 mm, and binary restenosis occurred in 33.3% of lesions. At the 6-month OCT, neointimal volume obstruction was 32.8 +/- 15.6% with a neointimal thickness of 237 +/- 117 mu m. At 12 months, the device-oriented composite endpoint (defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization rate) was 33.3%. Conclusions: In contrast with the preclinical study, the Axetis stent did not efficiently suppress neointimal hyperplasia in humans in this trial.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available