Key result
EES improves in-segment minimal lumen diameter by ~0.23 mm vs DEB for DES restenosis.
Why the study?
Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis remains a major challenge and comparative efficacy of drug-eluting balloons versus everolimus-eluting stents is unclear.
Do everolimus-eluting stents improve in-segment minimal lumen diameter compared to drug-eluting balloons in patients with DES in-stent restenosis?
RCT (n=309)
randomly allocated
Yes
Do everolimus-eluting stents improve in-segment minimal lumen diameter compared to drug-eluting balloons in patients with DES in-stent restenosis?
Mean Difference: 0.23 (95% CI 0.07–0.38)
Absolute Event Rate: 2.03% vs 1.8%
p-value: p=< 0.01
In patients with DES in-stent restenosis, everolimus-eluting stents provide superior long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes compared to drug-eluting balloons.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a major challenge. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the comparative efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients presenting with DES-ISR. METHODS: The study design of this multicenter randomized clinical trial assumed superiority of EES for the primary endpoint, in-segment minimal lumen diameter at the 6- to 9-month angiographic follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 309 patients with DES-ISR from 23 Spanish university hospitals were randomly allocated to DEB (n = 154) or EES (n = 155). At late angiography (median 247 days; 90% of eligible patients), patients in the EES arm had a significantly larger minimal lumen diameter (2.03 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.80 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.01) (absolute mean difference: 0.23 mm; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.38) [corrected], net lumen gain (1.28 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.01 ± 0.7 mm; p < 0.01), and lower percent diameter stenosis (23 ± 22% vs. 30 ± 22%; p < 0.01) and binary restenosis rate (11% vs. 19%; p = 0.06), compared with patients in the DEB arm. Consistent results were observed in the in-lesion analysis. At the 1-year clinical follow-up (100% of patients), the main clinical outcome measure (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) was significantly reduced in the EES arm (10% vs. 18%; p = 0.04; hazard ratio: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.98), mainly driven by a lower need for target vessel revascularization (8% vs. 16%; p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with DES-ISR, EES provided superior long-term clinical and angiographic results compared with DEB. (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent [RIBS IV]; NCT01239940).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alfonso et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) (n=309). Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) vs. Drug-eluting balloons (DEB) was evaluated on in-segment minimal lumen diameter at the 6- to 9-month angiographic follow-up (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38, p=< 0.01). Everolimus-eluting stents provided superior in-segment minimal lumen diameter at 6-9 months compared with drug-eluting balloons for DES in-stent restenosis (2.03 vs 1.80 mm; P<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: