AIM OF THE REVIEW: This review aims to compile the preclinical and clinical studies that had been done on EGCG to investigate its protective effect on cardiovascular and metabolic diseases in order to provide a systematic guidance for future research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Research papers related to EGCG were obtained from the major scientific databases, for example, Science direct, PubMed, NCBI, Springer and Google scholar, from 1995 to 2017.
RESULTS: EGCG was found to exhibit a wide range of therapeutic properties including anti-atherosclerosis, anti-cardiac hypertrophy, anti-myocardial infarction, anti-diabetes, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant. These therapeutic effects are mainly associated with the inhibition of LDL cholesterol (anti-atherosclerosis), inhibition of NF-κB (anti-cardiac hypertrophy), inhibition of MPO activity (anti-myocardial infarction), reduction in plasma glucose and glycated haemoglobin level (anti-diabetes), reduction of inflammatory markers (anti-inflammatory) and the inhibition of ROS generation (antioxidant).
CONCLUSION: EGCG shows different biological activities and in this review, a compilation of how this bioactive molecule plays its role in treating cardiovascular and metabolic diseases was discussed.
BACKGROUND: The current generation of bioresorbable scaffolds has several limitations, such as thick square struts with large footprints that preclude their deep embedment into the vessel wall, resulting in protrusion into the lumen with microdisturbance of flow. The Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold is designed to address these concerns.
METHODS: In this prospective, single-blind trial, 60 patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with a Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold or an Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold. The clinical endpoints were assessed at 30 days and at 6 and 12 months. In-device angiographic late loss at 12 months was quantified. Secondary optical coherence tomographic endpoints were assessed post-scaffold implantation at 6 and 12 months.
RESULTS: Median angiographic post-procedural in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were 2.38 mm (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.06 to 2.62 mm) and 2.55 mm (IQR: 2.26 to 2.71 mm), respectively; the effect size (d) was -0.29. At 12 months, median angiographic in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were not statistically different (1.90 mm [IQR: 1.57 to 2.31 mm] vs. 2.29 mm [IQR: 1.74 to 2.51 mm], d = -0.36). At 12-month follow-up, median in-scaffold late luminal loss with the Mirage and Absorb devices was 0.37 mm (IQR: 0.08 to 0.72 mm) and 0.23 mm (IQR: 0.15 to 0.37 mm), respectively (d = 0.20). On optical coherence tomography, post-procedural diameter stenosis with the Mirage was 11.2 ± 7.1%, which increased to 27.4 ± 12.4% at 6 months and remained stable (31.8 ± 12.9%) at 1 year, whereas the post-procedural optical coherence tomographic diameter stenosis with the Absorb was 8.4 ± 6.6%, which increased to 16.6 ± 8.9% and remained stable (21.2 ± 9.9%) at 1-year follow-up (Mirage vs. Absorb: dpost-procedure = 0.41, d6 months = 1.00, d12 months = 0.92). Angiographic median in-scaffold diameter stenosis was significantly different between study groups at 12 months (28.6% [IQR: 21.0% to 40.7%] for the Mirage, 18.2% [IQR: 13.1% to 31.6%] for the Absorb, d = 0.39). Device- and patient-oriented composite endpoints were comparable between the 2 study groups.
CONCLUSIONS: At 12 months, angiographic in-scaffold late loss was not statistically different between the Mirage and Absorb devices, although diameter stenosis on angiography and on optical coherence tomography was significantly higher with the Mirage than with the Absorb. The technique of implantation was suboptimal for both devices, and future trials should incorporate optical coherence tomographic guidance to allow optimal implantation and appropriate assessment of the new technology, considering the novel mechanical properties of the Mirage.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains challenging. PCBs are an established treatment option outside the United States with a Class I, Level of Evidence: A recommendation in the European guidelines. However, their efficacy is better in bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR compared with drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR.
METHODS: Fifty patients with DES ISR were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter trial to compare a novel SCB (SeQuent SCB, 4 μg/mm2) with a clinically proven PCB (SeQuent Please Neo, 3 μg/mm2) in coronary DES ISR. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included procedural success, major adverse cardiovascular events, and individual clinical endpoints such as stent thrombosis, cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and binary restenosis.
RESULTS: Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. After 6 months, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.21 ± 0.54 mm in the PCB group versus 0.17 ± 0.55 mm in the SCB group (p = NS; per-protocol analysis). Clinical events up to 12 months also did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This first-in-man comparison of a novel SCB with a crystalline coating shows similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary DES ISR compared with a clinically proven PCB. (Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis by a Sirolimus [Rapamycin] Coated Balloon or a Paclitaxel Coated Balloon [FIM LIMUS DCB]; NCT02996318).
METHODS: Participants (n = 202) were aged ≥65 years with two or more falls or one injurious fall in the past year, whereas controls (n = 156) included volunteers aged ≥65 years with no falls in the past year. A detailed medication history was obtained alongside demographic data. Polypharmacy was defined as "regular use of five or more prescription drugs." FRID were identified as cardiovascular agents, central nervous system drugs, analgesics and endocrine drugs; multiple FRID were defined as two or more FRID. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for confounders.
RESULTS: The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was independently associated with an increased risk of falls. Univariate analyses showed both polypharmacy (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.39-3.56; P = 0.001) and the use of two or more FRID (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.9-4.5; P = 0.0001) were significantly more likely amongst fallers. After adjustment for age, sex and comorbidities, blood pressure, and physical performance scores, polypharmacy was no longer associated with falls (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9-2.9; P = 0.102), whereas the consumption of two or more FRID remained a significant predictor for falls (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4-5.3; P = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Among high risk fallers, the use of two or more FRID was an independent risk factor for falls instead of polypharmacy. Our findings will inform clinical practice in terms of medication reviews among older adults at higher risk of falls. Future intervention studies will seek to confirm whether avoidance or withdrawal of multiple FRID reduces the risk of future falls. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; 17: 463-470.