2. Ερευνητικές δημοσιεύσεις | Research publications

Permanent URI for this community

https://hdl.handle.net/10889/2147
Η συλλογή αυτή συγκεντρώνει τις δημοσιεύσεις του διδακτικού και ερευνητικού προσωπικού του Πανεπιστημίου Πατρών σε επιστημονικά περιοδικά ή σε επιστημονικές εκδηλώσεις (συνέδρια, ημερίδες, κλπ.).

Browse

Browsing 2. Ερευνητικές δημοσιεύσεις | Research publications by Author "Alexopoulos, Dimitrios"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    An optical coherence tomography study of two new generation stents with 2 biodegradable polymer carrier, eluting paclitaxel vs. biolimus-A9
    Davlouros, Periklis; Mavronasiou, Eleni; Xanthopoulou, Ioanna; Karantalis, Vasileios; Tsigkas, Grigorios; Hahalis, George; Alexopoulos, Dimitrios; Δαβλούρος, Περικλής; Μαυρονάσιου, Ελένη; Καρανταλής, Βασίλειος; Τσίγκας, Γρηγόριος; Χαλάλης, Γεώργιος; Ξανθοπούλου, Ιωάννα; Αλεξόπουλος, Δημήτριος
    Τμήμα Ιατρικής (Δημοσ. Π.Π. σε περιοδικά)
    Background: Tissue coverage and strut apposition of drug eluting stents (DES), which can be assessed with 21 optical coherence tomography (OCT), may be associated with late stent thrombosis (LST). 22 Methods: Prospective observational angiographic and OCT follow-up at 6 months post-implantation of a 23 biolimus-A9 eluting stent (BES) vs. a paclitaxel eluting stent (PES), with biodegradable polymer carriers. The 24 primary outcome was the percent difference of uncovered struts between BESs and PESs. 25 Results: A maximum likelihood model was used for analysis, to account for data clustering. Sixteen patients 26 were treated with BES (28 lesions/4530 struts) and 16 with PES (23 lesions/4450 struts). Overall, BESs 27 compared to PESs had more uncovered [0.41% vs. 0.21%, difference estimate (DE) 0.2 (95% CI, 0.06–0.34), 28 p=0.006], malapposed [0.18% vs. 0.04%, DE 0.14 (95% CI 0.05–0.23), p=0.003], uncovered and malapposed 29 [0.08% vs. 0.026%, DE 0.057 (95% CI 0.015–0.1), p=0.01] and protruding struts [0.23% vs. 0.04%, DE 0.185 (95% 30 CI 0.1–0.27), pb0.001], and significantly lower neointimal thickness (59.3± 28.2 μm vs. 201.7± 97.5, 31 pb0.001). None of the BESs was totally covered with neointima, in contrast to 5 (21.7%) PESs (p=0.01). 32 Thrombus was detected in 1 (3.6%) BES and 5 (21.7%) PESs (p=0.05); however, no patient experienced 33 clinical stent thrombosis. 34 Conclusion: Between two stents with biodegradable polymer, OCT demonstrated that BESs had more 35 uncovered and malapposed struts compared to PESs at 6 months. This difference might be partly attributed to 36 the more potent antiproliferative properties of biolimus-A9; however, its impact on clinical outcome and on 37 the risk of LST is yet to be determined.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Diabetes mellitus and platelet reactivity in patients under prasugrel or ticagrelor treatment : an observational study
    Alexopoulos, Dimitrios; Stavrou, Katerina; Perperis, Aggelos; Xanthopoulou, Ioanna; Vogiatzi, Chrysoula; Vlassopoulou, Niki; Pentara, Ioanna; Αλεξόπουλος, Δημήτριος; Σταύρου, Κατερίνα; Περπερής, Άγγελος; Ξανθοπούλου, Ιωάννα; Βογιατζή, Χρυσούλα; Βλασσοπούλου, Νίκη; Πενταρά, Ιωάννα
    Τμήμα Ιατρικής (Δημοσ. Π.Π. σε περιοδικά)
    Background: The influence of diabetes mellitus (DM) on platelet reactivity (PR) in prasugrel or ticagrelor treated patients is not well studied. Methods: In an observational study involving 777 patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention treated by either prasugrel 10 mg od (n = 315) or ticagrelor 90 mg bid (n = 462), platelet function was assessed using the VerifyNow P2Y12 function assay (in PRU) at one month post intervention. Results: In the overall population, ticagrelor and insulin-treated DM affected PR, with a decrease in log by 0.88 (corresponding to a 58 % decrease in PR) compared to prasugrel-treated patients (p < 0.001), and an increase in log by 0.26 (corresponding to a 30 % increase in PR) compared to non-diabetic patients (p = 0.01), respectively. PR in prasugrel-treated patients differed significantly by DM status: 70.0 (36.3-113.0) in non-diabetic vs 69.0 (44.5-115.3) in non insulin-treated diabetic vs 122.0 (69.0-161.0) in insulin-treated diabetic patients, p for trend = 0.01. No differences were observed in ticagrelor-treated patients. By multivariate analysis, in prasugrel-treated patients insulin-treated DM was the only factor predicting PR, with log of PR increased by 0.42 (corresponding to a 52 % increase in PR) compared to non-diabetic patients (p = 0.001). No factor was found to affect PR in ticagrelor-treated patients. Conclusions: Patients with insulin-treated DM treated with prasugrel post PCI have higher PR, than patients without DM or non insulin-treated diabetic patients treated with this drug. Ticagrelor treated patients have overall lower PR than patients on prasugrel, independent of DM status or insulin treatment.