↓ Skip to main content

A head to head comparison of XINSORB bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold versus metallic sirolimus-eluting stent: 180 days follow-up in a porcine model

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
A head to head comparison of XINSORB bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold versus metallic sirolimus-eluting stent: 180 days follow-up in a porcine model
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10554-017-1148-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li Shen, Yizhe Wu, Lei Ge, Yaojun Zhang, Qibing Wang, Juying Qian, Zhifen Qiu, Junbo Ge

Abstract

We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of XINSORB bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold in porcine model. XINSORB scaffolds and metallic Firebird2™ stents were randomly implanted into minipigs' coronary arteries. Angiography, optical coherent tomography (OCT) and histopathological analyses were performed at post-procedure and 14-, 28-, 90-, 180-day follow-up. Thirty-two minipigs were enrolled. Eight XINSORB scaffolds and 8 Firebird2 stents were examined at each time point. Quantitative coronary angiography showed that in-scaffold late luminal loss (LLL) of XINSORB scaffold was 0.26 ± 0.13, 0.50 ± 0.16, 0.88 ± 0.29 and 0.43 ± 0.24 mm at 14-, 28, 90-, and 180-day follow-up respectively, and the corresponding diameter stenosis (DS) was 7.3 ± 4.7, 12.0 ± 9.5, 22.1 ± 8.0, and 16.0 ± 9.5%. Neither in-scaffold LLL nor DS of XINSORB scaffold was significantly different in comparison with Firebird2 stent. No difference of luminal area, device area, neointimal hyperplasia, and area stenosis was detected between two devices under OCT. Scaffold area of XINSORB remained steady through the observation. Histopathology revealed the similar findings. The greatest late recoil of XINSORB scaffold was about 4.12% at 90-day follow-up, which was comparable to Firebird2 stent. Both devices showed low injury or inflammation of vessel wall. XINSORB scaffold showed early neointimal coverage on struts within 28 days under scanning electron microscopy. XINSORB scaffold suppressed neointimal hyperplasia as effectively as Firebird2 did without obvious late device recoil during the 180 days follow-up. It is feasible to carry out clinical trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of XINSORB scaffold for patients with coronary artery diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Unspecified 1 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Unspecified 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 8 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#1,116
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,203
of 329,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#36
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,969 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.