Difference in statin effects on neointimal coverage after implantation of drug-eluting stents.

Objective: This study was carried out to examine the difference in effects between rosuvastatin and pravastatin on neointimal formation after the placement of a drug-eluting stent (DES).

Materials And Methods: Forty patients who underwent placement of a DES in our hospital were prospectively randomized to receive rosuvastatin (n=20) or pravastatin (n=20), and analyzed by optical coherence tomography at the chronic stage. The main outcome measure was comparison of neointimal coverage analyzed at a strut level.

Results: A significant reduction in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, and white blood cell count was observed during the study in the rosuvastatin group (total cholesterol, from 4.82±0.90 to 4.43±0.77 mmol/l, P=0.038; low-density lipoprotein, from 2.85±0.76 to 2.34±0.57 mmol/l, P=0.006; white blood cell count, from 5810±1399 to 5355±1257/µl, P=0.048), but not in the pravastatin group. Although not statistically significant, C-reactive protein was lower in the rosuvastatin than in the pravastatin group at the chronic stage (1.14±1.21 vs. 7.67±13.67 mg/l, P=0.051). Malapposed and uncovered struts were significantly less frequent in the rosuvastatin group than in the pravastatin group (malapposed, 0.06 vs. 0.60%, P<0.001; uncovered, 6.49 vs. 11.29%, P<0.001). The difference in uncovered struts was maintained even when stent types were analyzed separately (everolimus-eluting stent, 4.81 vs. 6.21%, P=0.007; sirolimus-eluting stent, 14.40 vs. 20.86%, P<0.001). Comparison of neointimal thickness between the rosuvastatin and the pravastatin groups showed inconsistent results depending on the stent types analyzed.

Conclusion: Compared with pravastatin, the use of rosuvastatin resulted in lower frequency of uncovered and malapposed struts after the placement of a DES, which might be mediated through improved inflammatory and lipid profiles.