医学
再狭窄
依维莫司
裸金属
药物洗脱支架
冠状动脉再狭窄
支架
药品
裸金属支架
内科学
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗
心脏病学
药理学
心肌梗塞
作者
Fernándo Alfonso,Marı́a José Pérez-Vizcayno,Bruno García del Blanco,Arturo García‐Touchard,José-Ramón López-Mínguez,Mónica Masotti,Javier Zueco,Rafael Melgares,Vicente Mainar,Raul Moreno,,Antonio Domínguez,Juan Sanchís,Armando Bethencourt,José Moreu,Angel Cequier,,Vicens Martı́,Imanol Otaegui,,Teresa Bastante,Nieves Gonzalo,Pilar Jiménez‐Quevedo
标识
DOI:10.1161/circinterventions.115.003479
摘要
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.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI