Table 4.
Quantitative and qualitative OCT analysis and qualitative CAS analysis
| BP-EES | BVS | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantitative OCT analysis | |||
| 4 M follow-up | n = 12, 13stents | n = 11, 15scaffolds | |
| Analyzed struts, mean ± SD | 271.6 ± 83.8 | 280.1 ± 132.4 | 0.858 |
| Minimum lumen area (mm2) | 3.97 ± 2.01 | 3.45 ± 1.24 | 0.456 |
| Minimum stent/BVS area (mm2) | 4.55 ± 1.83 | 3.97 ± 1.08 | 0.366 |
| Maximum neointima area (mm2) | 1.36 ± 0.51 | 1.48 ± 0.71 | 0.648 |
| Thrombus, n (%) | 1 (8.3) | 11 (100) | < 0.001 |
| Thrombus volume (mm3) | 0.004 ± 0.01 | 0.045 ± 0.05 | 0.025 |
| Lumen volume (mm3) | 158.2 ± 50.7 | 155.6 ± 90.2 | 0.936 |
| Stent/BVS volume (mm3) | 180.0 ± 50.2 | 176.8 ± 102.2 | 0.927 |
| Neointimal volume (mm3) | 22.2 ± 15.2 | 23.2 ± 15.7 | 0.875 |
| Mean neointimal thickness (μm) | 93.7 ± 49.6 | 113.5 ± 38.0 | 0.294 |
| Malapposed struts rate (%) | 0.67 ± 1.56 | 0.09 ± 0.30 | 0.233 |
| Covered struts rate (%) | 91.7 ± 17.1 | 96.4 ± 5.21 | 0.379 |
| 12 M follow-up | n = 10, 10 stents | n = 11, 14 scaffolds | |
| Analyzed struts, mean ± SD | 261.3 ± 84.9 | 280.8 ± 167.8 | 0.738 |
| Minimum lumen area (mm2) | 3.27 ± 2.17 | 3.59 ± 1.08 | 0.673 |
| Minimum stent/BVS area (mm2) | 4.74 ± 2.10 | 4.50 ± 0.94 | 0.740 |
| Maximum neointima area (mm2) | 2.74 ± 0.99 | 1.78 ± 0.85 | 0.026 |
| Thrombus, n (%) | 1 (10.0) | 4 (36.4) | 0.311 |
| Thrombus volume (mm3) | 0.002 ± 0.01 | 0.01 ± 0.02 | 0.221 |
| Lumen volume (mm3) | 153.1 ± 99.1 | 140.7 ± 88.1 | 0.761 |
| Stent/BVS volume (mm3) | 205.1 ± 100.2 | 166.4 ± 109.6 | 0.397 |
| Neointimal volume (mm3) | 52.1 ± 24.4 | 28.6 ± 26.0 | 0.042 |
| Mean neointimal thickness (μm) | 206.2 ± 81.2 | 128.2 ± 61.5 | 0.023 |
| Malapposed struts rate (%) | 0.30 ± 0.67 | 1.58 ± 3.55 | 0.244 |
| Covered struts rate (%) | 98.8 ± 2.60 | 97.7 ± 4.17 | 0.476 |
| Qualitative OCT analysis | |||
| 4 M follow-up | n = 12, 13 stents | n = 11, 15 scaffolds | |
| Homogeneous, n (%) | 9 (75.0) | 7 (63.6) | 0.816 |
| Heterogeneous, n (%) | 2 (16.7) | 3 (27.3) | |
| Layered, n (%) | 1 (8.3) | 1 (9.1) | |
| High intensity, n (%) | 9 (75.0) | 8 (72.7) | 0.901 |
| Low intensity, n (%) | 3 (25.0) | 3 (27.3) | |
| 12 M follow-up | n = 10, 10 stents | n = 11, 14 scaffolds | |
| Homogeneous, n (%) | 7 (70.0) | 8 (72.7) | 0.9919 |
| Heterogeneous, n (%) | 2 (20.0) | 2 (18.2) | |
| Layered, n (%) | 1 (10.0) | 1 (9.1) | |
| High intensity, n (%) | 9(90.0) | 10(90.9) | 0.944 |
| Low intensity, n (%) | 1(10.0) | 1(9.1) | |
| Qualitative CAS analysis | |||
| 4 M follow-up | n = 12, 13 stents | n = 11, 15 scaffolds | |
| NIC, grade ± SD | 1.76 ± 0.72 | N/A | |
| Thrombus (%) | 23.1 | 93.3 | < 0.001 |
| Yellow plaque (%) | 84.6 | 100 | 0.206 |
| Yellow plaque, grade | 0.62 | 1.333 | 0.131 |
| Low grade (0–1) (%) | 92.3 | 60.0 | |
| High grade (2–3) (%) | 7.7 | 40.0 | |
| ELI (Erosion-like intima) (%) | 15.4 | 93.3 | < 0.001 |
| 12 M follow-up | n = 10, 9 stents | n = 10, 14 scaffolds | |
| NIC, grade ± SD | 2.78 ± 0.44 | N/A | |
| Thrombus (%) | 10.0 | 57.1 | 0.033 |
| Yellow plaque (%) | 40.0 | 78.6 | 0.092 |
| Yellow plaque, grade | 0.40 | 1.07 | 0.110 |
| Low grade (0–1) (%) | 90.0 | 78.6 | |
| High grade (2–3) (%) | 10.0 | 21.4 | |
| ELI (Erosion-like intima) (%) | 0.0 | 57.1 | 0.006 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD or number (%)
NIC dominant neointimal coverage