Long-Term Results of Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Balloons in Patients With Bare-Metal In-Stent Restenosis: 3-Year Follow-Up of the RIBS V Clinical Trial
Fernando Alfonso, María José Pérez-Vizcayno, Bruno García Del Blanco, Imanol Otaegui, Mónica Masotti, Javier Zueco, Maite Veláquez, Juan Sanchís, Arturo García-Touchard, Rosa Lázaro-García, José Moreu, Armando Bethencourt, Javier Cuesta, Fernando Rivero, Alberto Cárdenas, Nieves Gonzalo, Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo, Cristina Fernández, RIBS V Study Investigators, Fernando Alfonso, María José Pérez-Vizcayno, Bruno García Del Blanco, Imanol Otaegui, Mónica Masotti, Javier Zueco, Maite Veláquez, Juan Sanchís, Arturo García-Touchard, Rosa Lázaro-García, José Moreu, Armando Bethencourt, Javier Cuesta, Fernando Rivero, Alberto Cárdenas, Nieves Gonzalo, Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo, Cristina Fernández, RIBS V Study Investigators
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in patients with bare-metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR).
Background: The relative long-term clinical efficacy of current therapeutic modalities in patients with ISR remains unknown.
Methods: The 3-year clinical follow-up (pre-specified endpoint) of patients included in the RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare-Metal Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation) randomized clinical trial was analyzed. All patients were followed yearly using a pre-defined structured questionnaire.
Results: A total of 189 patients with bare-metal stent ISR were allocated to either EES (n = 94) or DEB (n = 95). Clinical follow-up at 1, 2, and 3 years was obtained in all patients (100%). Compared with patients treated with DEB, those treated with EES obtained better angiographic results, including larger minimal luminal diameter at follow-up (primary study endpoint; 2.36 ± 0.6 mm vs. 2.01 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.001). At 3 years, the rates of cardiac death (2% vs. 1%), myocardial infarction (4% vs. 5%) and target vessel revascularization (9% vs. 5%) were similar in the DEB and EES arms. Importantly, however, at 3 years, the rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the EES arm (2% vs. 8%; p = 0.04; hazard ratio: 0.23; 95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.93). The need for "late" (>1 year) target vessel (3 [3.2%] vs. 3 [3.2%]; p = 0.95) and target lesion (1 [1%] vs. 2 [2.1%]; p = 0.54) revascularization was low and similar in the 2 arms. Rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis (1% vs. 0%) were also similar in the 2 arms.
Conclusions: The 3-year clinical follow-up of the RIBS V clinical trial confirms the sustained safety and efficacy of EES and DEB in patients treated for bare-metal stent ISR. In this setting, EES reduce the need for target lesion revascularization at very long-term follow-up. (RIBS V [Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent] [RIBS V]; NCT01239953).
Keywords: drug-eluting balloon(s); drug-eluting stent(s); everolimus-eluting stent(s); in-stent restenosis.
Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Source: PubMed