MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Bare-Metal and Drug-Eluting In-Stent Restenosis: Results From a Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of the RIBS IV and V Trials.
Author: Alfonso F, Pérez-Vizcayno MJ, García Del Blanco B, García-Touchard A, López-Mínguez JR, Masotti M, Zueco J, Melgares R, Mainar V, Moreno R, Domínguez A, Sanchís J, Bethencourt A, Moreu J, Cequier A, Martí V, Otaegui I, Bastante T, Gonzalo N, Jiménez-Quevedo P, Cárdenas A, Fernández C, under the auspices of the Interventional Cardiology Working Group of the Spanish Society of Cardiology.
Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv; 2016 Jul; 9(7):. PubMed ID: 27412868.
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is more challenging than that of patients with bare-metal stent ISR. However, the results of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in these distinct scenarios remain unsettled. METHODS AND RESULTS: A pooled analysis of the RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) and RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) randomized trials was performed using patient-level data to compare the efficacy of EES in bare-metal stent ISR and DES-ISR. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical in both trials. Results of 94 patients treated with EES for bare-metal stent ISR were compared with those of 155 patients treated with EES for DES-ISR. Baseline characteristics were more adverse in patients with DES-ISR, although they presented later and more frequently with a focal pattern. After intervention, minimal lumen diameter (2.22±0.5 versus 2.38±0.5 mm, P=0.01) was smaller in the DES-ISR group. Late angiographic findings (89.3% of eligible patients), including minimal lumen diameter (2.03±0.7 versus 2.36±0.6 mm, P<0.001) and diameter stenosis (23±22 versus 13±17%, P<0.001) were poorer in patients with DES-ISR. Results were consistent in the in-segment and in-lesion analyses. On multiple linear regression analysis, minimal lumen diameter at follow-up remained significantly smaller in patients with DES-ISR. Finally, at 1-year clinical follow-up (100% of patients), mortality (2.6 versus 0%, P<0.01) and need for target vessel revascularization (8 versus 2%, P=0.03) were higher in the DES-ISR group. CONCLUSIONS: This patient-level pooled analysis of the RIBS IV and RIBS V randomized clinical trials suggests that EES provide favorable outcomes in patients with ISR. However, the results of EES are less satisfactory in patients with DES-ISR than in those with bare-metal stent ISR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01239953 and NCT01239940.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]