Table 2. . Preclinical studies investigating COBRA-PzF.
| Study | Publication year | Models used | Findings | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koppara et al. | 2016 | Porcine coronary artery model | Similar endothelial coverage but lower neointimal thickness and reduced inflammation in COBRA-PzF compared with BMS | [29] |
| Porcine ex vivo shunt model | Lower stent surface area occupied by platelet aggregates as compared with BMS | |||
| Human monocyte adhesion assay | Lower human monocyte/macrophage and giant cell adherence on COBRA-PzF as compared with BMS | |||
| Cytokine content in monocyte supernatant | Lower levels of IL-4, IL-10 and IL12p40 in the supernatant of monocytes attached to COBRA-PzF | |||
| Jinnouchi et al. | 2019 | Porcine ex vivo shunt model | Less clots in COBRA-PzF compared with durable-polymer DES and bioabsorbable-polymer DES Similar inflammatory cell adhesion in COBRA-PzF and durable polymer DES, but lower inflammatory cell adhesion in COBRA compared with bioabsorbable polymer DES |
[30] |
| Rabbit iliac artery model | Greater endothelial coverage in COBRA-PzF compared with durable-polymer DES and bioabsorbable-polymer DES | |||
| Maillard et al. | 2020 | Rabbit iliac artery model | Nearly complete endothelial coverage of COBRA-PzF at 7 days after stent implantation | [31] |
BMS: Bare metal stent; DES: Drug-eluting stent.