One‐year head to head comparison of the neointimal response between sirolimus eluting stent with reservoir technology and everolimus eluting stent

to compare the vascular healing process between the sirolimus-eluting NEVO and the everolimus-eluting Xience stent by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at 1-year follow-up.Presence of durable polymer on a drug-eluting metallic stent may be the basis of an inflammatory reaction with abnormal healing response. The NEVO stent, having a bioresorbable polymer eluted by reservoir technology, may overcome this problem.All consecutive patients, who received NEVO or Xience stent implantation between September 2010 and October 2010 in our institution, were included. Vascular healing was assessed at 1-year as percentage of uncovered struts, neointimal thickness (NIT), in-stent/stent area obstruction and pattern of neointima.A total 47 patients (2:1 randomization, n = 32 NEVO, n = 15 Xience) were included. Eighteen patients underwent angiographic follow-up (eight patients with nine lesions for NEVO vs. 10 patients with 11 lesions for Xience). The angiographic late loss was numerically higher but not statistically different in NEVO compared with Xience treated lesions (0.38 ± 0.47 mm vs. 0.18 ± 0.27 mm; P = 0.171). OCT analysis of 4,912 struts demonstrated similar rates of uncovered struts (0.5 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.462), higher mean NIT (177.76 ± 87.76 µm vs. 132.22 ± 30.91 µm; P = 0.170) and in stent/stent area obstruction (23.02 ± 14.74% vs. 14.17 ± 5.94%, P = 0.120) in the NEVO as compared with Xience.The NEVO stent with a reservoir technology seems to exhibit more neointimal proliferation as compared to Xience stent. The findings of our study, which currently represent the unique data existing on this reservoir technology, would need to be confirmed in a large population.