The edge vascular response following implantation of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the XIENCE V metallic everolimus-eluting stent. First serial follow-up assessment at six months and two years: insights from the first-in-man ABSORB Cohort B and SPIRIT II trials

AIMS To assess serially the edge vascular response (EVR) of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to a metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES). METHODS AND RESULTS Non-serial evaluations of the Absorb BVS at one year have previously demonstrated proximal edge constrictive remodelling and distal edge changes in plaque composition with increase of the percent fibro-fatty (FF) tissue component. The 5 mm proximal and distal segments adjacent to the implanted devices were investigated serially with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), post procedure, at six months and at two years, from the ABSORB Cohort B1 (n=45) and the SPIRIT II (n=113) trials. Twenty-two proximal and twenty-four distal edge segments were available for analysis in the ABSORB Cohort B1 trial. In the SPIRIT II trial, thirty-three proximal and forty-six distal edge segments were analysed. At the 5-mm proximal edge, the vessels treated with an Absorb BVS from post procedure to two years demonstrated a lumen loss (LL) of 6.68% (-17.33; 2.08) (p=0.027) with a trend toward plaque area increase of 7.55% (-4.68; 27.11) (p=0.06). At the 5-mm distal edge no major changes were evident at either time point. At the 5-mm proximal edge the vessels treated with a XIENCE V EES from post procedure to two years did not show any signs of LL, only plaque area decrease of 6.90% (-17.86; 4.23) (p=0.035). At the distal edge no major changes were evident with regard to either lumen area or vessel remodelling at the same time point. CONCLUSIONS The IVUS-based serial evaluation of the EVR up to two years following implantation of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold shows a statistically significant proximal edge LL; however, this finding did not seem to have any clinical implications in the serial assessment. The upcoming imaging follow-up of the Absorb BVS at three years is anticipated to provide further information regarding the vessel wall behaviour at the edges.

CYTOPLASMIC MALATE DEHYDROGENASE IS THE AROMATIC ALPHA-KETO ACID REDUCTASE IN MAN (PHENYLKETONURIA, PKU, TYROSINE)

This dissertation presents evidence to support the hypothesis that cytoplasmic malate dehydrogenase (MDH-1) is the enzyme in humans which catalyzes the reduction of aromatic alpha-keto acids in the presence of NADH, and the enzyme which has been described in the literature as aromatic alpha-keto acid reductase (KAR; E.C. 1.1.1.96) is actually a secondary activity of cytoplasmic malate dehydrogenase.^ Purified MDH and purified KAR have the same molecular weight, subunit structure, heat-inactivation profile and tissue distribution. After starch gel electrophoresis, and using p-hydroxyphenylpyruvic acid (HPPA) as substrate, KAR activity co-migrates with MDH-1 in all species studied except some marine animals. Inhibition with malate, the end-product of malate dehydrogenase, substantially reduces or totally eliminates KAR activity. Purified cytoplasmic MDH from human erythrocytes has an alpha-keto acid reductase activity with identical mobility. All electrophoretic variants of MDH-1 seen in the fresh-water bony fish Xiphophorus, the amphibians Rana and humans exhibited identical variation for KAR, and the two traits co-segregated in the small group of offspring from one Rana heterozygote studied. Both enzymes show almost no electrophoretic variation among humans from many ethnic groups, and among several inbred strains of mice both MDH-s and KAR co-migrate with no variation. MDH-1 and KAR in mouse and Chinese hamster fibroblasts show identical mobility differences between species. Antisera raised against purified chicken cytoplasmic MDH totally inhibited both MDH-1 and KAR in chickens and humans. Mitochondrial MDH from tissue homogenates has no detectable KAR activity but purified MDH-2 does.^ The previous claim that the gene for KAR is on human chromosome 12 is disputed because both MDH-1 and LDH bands appear with slightly different mobility approximately midway between the human and hamster controls in somatic cell hybrid studies, and the meaning of this artifact is discussed. ^