MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Long-Term Results of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: The RIBS VI Study.
Author: Cuesta J, Pérez-Vizcayno MJ, García Del Blanco B, Bosa F, Pérez de Prado A, Rumoroso JR, Romaguera R, Gutiérrez H, García Touchard A, López-Mínguez JR, Trillo R, de la Torre Hernández JM, Moreno R, Velázquez M, Moris C, Kockar MJ, Jiménez-Quevedo P, Bastante T, Del Val D, Rivero F, Alfonso F.
Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2024 Aug 12; 17(15):1825-1836. PubMed ID: 39142758.
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: In patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) provide similar results to drug-coated balloons (DCBs) but are inferior to drug-eluting stents (DES) at 1 year. However, the long-term efficacy of BVS in these patients remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of BVS in patients with ISR. METHODS: RIBS VI (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment; NCT02672878) and RIBS VI Scoring (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment With Scoring Balloon; NTC03069066) are prospective multicenter studies designed to evaluate the results of BVS in patients with ISR (N = 220). The inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical to those used in the RIBS IV (ISR of DES) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Drug-eluting Stents: Drug-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239940) and RIBS V (ISR of bare-metal stents) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239953) randomized trials (including 249 ISR patients treated with DCBs and 249 ISR patients treated with DES). A prespecified comparison of the long-term results obtained with these treatment modalities (ie, DES, DCBs, and BVS) was performed. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up at 3 years was obtained in all (100%) 718 patients. The 3-year target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was 14.1% (vs 12.9% after DCBs [not significant], and 5.2% after DES [HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.47-5.36; P = 0.001]). In a landmark analysis (>1 year), the target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was higher than after DES (adjusted HR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.15-10.08) and DCBs (adjusted HR: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.14-9.70). Very late vessel thrombosis was also more frequent with BVS (BVS: 1.8%, DCBs: 0.4%, DES: 0%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR, late clinical results of DES are superior to those obtained with DCBs and BVS. Beyond the first year, DCBs are safer and more effective than BVS.

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