Tissue coverage of a hydrophilic polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent vs. a fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent at 13-month follow-up: an optical coherence tomography substudy from the RESOLUTE All Comers trial

Aims To compare the tissue coverage of a hydrophilic polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) vs. a fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at 13 months, using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in an ‘all-comers' population of patients, in order to clarify the mechanism of eventual differences in the biocompatibility and thrombogenicity of the devices. Methods and results Patients randomized to angiographic follow-up in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (NCT00617084) at pre-specified OCT sites underwent OCT follow-up at 13 months. Tissue coverage and apposition were assessed strut by strut, and the results in both treatment groups were compared using multilevel logistic or linear regression, as appropriate, with clustering at three different levels: patient, lesion, and stent. Fifty-eight patients (30 ZES and 28 EES), 72 lesions, 107 stents, and 23 197 struts were analysed. Eight hundred and eighty-seven and 654 uncovered struts (7.4 and 5.8%, P= 0.378), and 216 and 161 malapposed struts (1.8 and 1.4%, P= 0.569) were found in the ZES and EES groups, respectively. The mean thickness of coverage was 116 ± 99 µm in ZES and 142 ± 113 µm in EES (P= 0.466). No differences in per cent neointimal volume obstruction (12.5 ± 7.9 vs. 15.0 ± 10.7%) or other areas–volumetric parameters were found between ZES and EES, respectively. Conclusion No significant differences in tissue coverage, malapposition, or lumen/stent areas and volumes were detected by OCT between the hydrophilic polymer-coated ZES and the fluoropolymer-coated EES at 13-month follow-up.

Review of 197 consecutive free flap reconstructions in the lower extremity

Complications and failures after microvascular free tissue transfer for lower extremity reconstruction have a negative impact on postoperative course and final outcome. Therefore, a 10-year analysis on lower extremity reconstruction with free flaps was performed with a special emphasis on patient co-morbidities such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, body mass index and history of smoking, in order to identify potential risk factors. Complications such as haematoma, seroma, infection, wound dehiscence, as well as partial flap loss, postoperative thrombosis of the anastomosis and eventual total flap loss were gathered from the medical records. Limb salvage was 100%, however 40% suffered from complications ranging from minor wound dehiscence to total flap loss. None of the above-mentioned potential risk factors was associated with an increased rate of complications. However, in flaps that required revision for thrombosis, the age of the patients was significantly higher in the group of flaps that eventually failed when compared to flaps that were salvaged. In conclusion, lower extremity reconstruction with microvascular free tissue transfer is a safe and reliable procedure with a high success rate, however partial flap loss remains an important issue. Increased age was the only factor identified with an increased risk for subsequent flap loss in cases that were revised for thrombosis.