Background: DM remains a risk factor for poor outcome after stent-implantation, but little is known if and how DM affects the vascular response to BVS. Aim: The aim of our study was to examine coronary responses to bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in swine with and without diabetes mellitus fed a ‘fast-food’ diet (FF-DM and FF-NDM, respectively) by sequential optical coherence tomography (OCT)-imaging and histology. Methods: Fifteen male swine were evaluated. Eight received streptozotocin-injection to induce DM. After 9 months (M), 32 single BVS were implanted in epicardial arteries with a stent to artery (S/A)-ratio of 1.1:1 under quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and OCT guidance. Lumen, scaffold, neointimal coverage and composition were assessed by QCA, OCT and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) pre- and/or post-procedure, at 3M and 6M. Additionally, polarization-sensitive (PS)-OCT was performed in 7 swine at 6M. After sacrifice at 3M and 6M, histology and polymer degradation analysis were performed. Results: Late lumen loss was high (~60%) within the first 3M after BVS-implantation (P<0.01 FF-DM vs. FF-NDM) and stabilized between 3M and 6M (<5% change in FF-DM, ~10% in FF-NDM; P>0.20). Neointimal coverage was highly heterogeneous in all swine (DM vs. NDM P>0.05), with focal lipid accumulation, irregular collagen distribution and neointimal calcification. Likewise, polymer mass loss was low (~2% at 3M, ~5% at 6M;P>0.20) and not associated with DM or inflammation. Conclusion: Scaffold coverage showed signs of neo-atherosclerosis in all FF-DM and FF-NDM swine, scaffold polymer was preserved and the vascular response to BVS was not influenced by diabetes.

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183419, hdl.handle.net/1765/101980
Journal PLoS ONE
Citation
van Ditzhuijzen, N.S, Kurata, M, van den Heuvel, M.M, Sorop, O, van Duin, R.W.B, Krabbendam-Peters, I, … van Beusekom, H.M.M. (2017). Neoatherosclerosis development following bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in diabetic and non-diabetic swine. PLoS ONE, 12(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183419