Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds for Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: The RIBS VI Study
Fernando Alfonso, Javier Cuesta, María José Pérez-Vizcayno, Bruno García Del Blanco, José Ramón Rumoroso, Francisco Bosa, Armando Pérez de Prado, Mónica Masotti, Raul Moreno, Angel Cequier, Hipólito Gutiérrez, Arturo García Touchard, José Ramón López-Mínguez, Javier Zueco, Vicens Martí, Maite Velázquez, César Morís, Teresa Bastante, Marcos García-Guimaraes, Fernando Rivero, Cristina Fernández, Interventional Cardiology Working Group of the Spanish Society of Cardiology, Fernando Alfonso, Javier Cuesta, María José Pérez-Vizcayno, Bruno García Del Blanco, José Ramón Rumoroso, Francisco Bosa, Armando Pérez de Prado, Mónica Masotti, Raul Moreno, Angel Cequier, Hipólito Gutiérrez, Arturo García Touchard, José Ramón López-Mínguez, Javier Zueco, Vicens Martí, Maite Velázquez, César Morís, Teresa Bastante, Marcos García-Guimaraes, Fernando Rivero, Cristina Fernández, Interventional Cardiology Working Group of the Spanish Society of Cardiology
Abstract
Objectives: This study sought to assess the value of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR).
Background: Currently both drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-eluting balloons (DEB) are recommended in patients with ISR. However, the value of BVS in this setting remains unclear.
Methods: RIBS VI (Restenosis Intra-stent: drug-eluting Balloon vs everolimus-eluting Stent) was a prospective multicenter study (19 Spanish sites) that included 141 patients treated with BVS for either bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR or DES-ISR. Late angiography was scheduled at 6 to 9 months. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were similar to those used in the RIBS IV (patients with DES-ISR) and RIBS V (patients with BMS-ISR) trials, where DEB (n = 249) was compared with everolimus (EES)-DES (n = 249). Results of BVS in RIBS VI were compared with those obtained with DEB and EES in the RIBS IV and V trials.
Results: On late angiography (n = 134; 95% of eligible) the in-segment minimal lumen diameter (primary endpoint) was 1.87 ± 0.5 mm, late lumen loss was 0.23 ± 0.4 mm, and restenosis rate was 11%. At 1-year follow-up (100% of patients) no patient died, 4 (2.8%) experienced a myocardial infarction, and 16 (11.3%) required target lesion revascularization. One patient (0.7%) who discontinued antiplatelet therapy experienced definitive BVS thrombosis. Freedom from cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization was 86%. The minimal lumen diameter at follow-up after BVS was similar to that obtained with DEB (1.88 ± 0.6 mm; p = NS) but smaller than that achieved after EES (2.16 ± 0.7 mm; p < 0.001). Likewise, target lesion revascularization rates after BVS were similar to those seen with DEB (10.4%) but higher than with EES (3.2%; p < 0.001). Results remained unchanged after adjusting for potential confounders in baseline characteristics.
Conclusions: This study suggests the safety and efficacy of BVS in patients with ISR. In this challenging anatomic scenario BVS obtained late angiographic and clinical results similar to DEB but inferior to EES. (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment [RIBS VI]; NCT02672878).
Keywords: bare-metal stent(s); drug-eluting balloon(s); drug-eluting stent(s); in-stent restenosis.
Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Source: PubMed