Publications by authors named "Auke P J D Weevers"
Analyses from administrative databases have suggested an increased cancer incidence among individuals who experienced a myocardial infarction, especially within the first 6 months. It remains unclear to what extent this represents an underlying biological link, or can be explained by detection of pre-symptomatic cancers and shared risk factors. Cancer incidence among 1809 consecutive patients surviving hospitalization for thrombotic ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI; mean age 62.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: Randomized controlled trials for in-stent restenosis (ISR) and de novo lesions in small-diameter vessels have shown promising results, but data on DCB use in real-world practice are still scarce. The aim of the PEARL (Paclitaxel-Eluting Angioplasty Balloon in the Real-World) registry was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a paclitaxel DCB in real-world percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice.
Methods: Between 2014 and 2019, a total of 513 patients treated with the Protégé paclitaxel DCB (Wellinq) were prospectively included at 4 hospitals in the Netherlands.
Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: final five-year results of the AIDA randomised clinical trial.
EuroIntervention
March 2022
Article Synopsis
- The study examined the long-term (five-year) clinical outcomes of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with coronary artery disease.
- There was no significant difference in target vessel failure rates between the two devices; however, the Absorb BVS had a notably higher incidence of device thrombosis (4.8% vs. 1.5% for XIENCE).
- The use of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) appeared to reduce the risk of scaffold thrombosis over the five-year follow-up period.
Three-year clinical outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent in routine PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus-AIDA sub-study.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
October 2021
Article Synopsis
- - The study compares the effectiveness of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) and Xience everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) during routine percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) over a 3-year period.
- - Among 1,845 participants, rates of target vessel failure (TVF) were similar for both devices in diabetic patients, but Absorb BVS showed significantly higher rates of device thrombosis compared to Xience EES for both diabetic and nondiabetic patients.
- - Overall, both Absorb BVS and Xience EES yielded poorer outcomes for diabetic patients, with Absorb BVS being linked to increased risk of device thromb
The influence of implantation techniques on lesion oriented-outcomes in Absorb BVS and Xience EES lesions treated in routine clinical practice at complete three year follow-up: AIDA trial QCA substudy.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging
April 2020
Article Synopsis
- The AIDA trial QCA substudy examined how different Absorb BVS implantation techniques affect outcomes related to cardiovascular events like thrombosis and vessel failure over a 3-year period.
- The study analyzed 2,152 lesions and found that correctly sized devices for the Absorb BVS had a lower incidence of adverse events (8.5%) compared to incorrectly sized devices (11.1%), although this difference wasn't statistically significant.
- In contrast, Xience EES devices showed a higher rate of adverse events (7.1%) when incorrectly sized compared to correctly sized devices (2.2%), suggesting correct sizing is crucial for minimizing risks in this type of treatment.
Background: Females are underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating new stent technologies whilst results may differ between the sexes. Females are known to have smaller, more tortuous coronary arteries and have generally more comorbidities. On the other hand, they may have smaller plaque burden.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFClinical outcomes at 2 years of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the Xience drug-eluting metallic stent in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome versus stable coronary disease-AIDA trial substudy.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
January 2020
Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment with metallic drug eluting stents. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers (AIDA) trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) treated patients presenting either with or without ACS.
Methods And Results: We classified AIDA patients on the basis of clinical presentation of ACS or of no-ACS.
Due to expansion limits of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold a meticulous implantation with correct sizing is required. We sought to investigate the clinical outcomes based on the sizing of the device related to the maximal lumen diameter measured by quantitative coronary angiography in Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated lesions in the AIDA trial. Sizing of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) was graded according to the definitions of device non-oversize and device oversize on pre-procedural angiography.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF