Journal Article

Procedural Results and One-Year Clinical Outcomes of Treatment of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Restenosis (from the RIBS VII Prospective Study)

Del Val, David, Alfonso, Fernando, Mauri, Josepa, Serra, Antonio, Camacho-Freire, Santiago, Otaegui, Imanol, Vaquerizo, Beatriz, Rivero, Fernando, De la TorreHernandez, Jose M., Pan, Manuel, Trillo, Ramiro, García del Blanco, Bruno, Díaz, José, Salvatella, Neus, Bastante, Teresa, Navarro, Felipe, Córdoba-Soriano, Juan G., Ojeda, Soledad, Cuesta, Javier, Velázquez, Maite, Zueco, Javier

2022

Overview

Currently, both drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-eluting balloons are recommended in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) of metallic stents. However, the clinical results of repeated interventions in patients with restenosis of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) remain unsettled. We sought to assess the results of interventions in patients with BVS-ISR as compared with those obtained in patients with ISR of DES and bare-metal stents (BMS). Restenosis Intrastent: Treatment of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Restenosis (RIBS VII) is a prospective multicenter study (23 Spanish sites) that included 117 consecutive patients treated for BVS-ISR. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were similar to those of previous RIBS studies. Patients in the RIBS IV (DES-ISR, n = 309) and RIBS V (BMS - ISR, n = 189) randomized trials, were used as controls. Most patients with BVS-ISR were treated with DES (76%). Patients with BVS-ISR were younger, had larger vessels, and after interventions had higher in-segment residual diameter stenosis (19 ± 13%, 15 ± 11%, 15 ± 12%, p <0.001) than those treated for DES-ISR and BMS-ISR, respectively. At 1-year clinical follow-up (obtained in 100% of patients) target lesion revascularization (6%) was similar to that seen in patients with DES-ISR and BMS-ISR (8.7% and 3.7%, p = 0.32). Freedom from death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (primary clinical end point) was 8.5%, also similar to that found in patients with DES-ISR and BMS-ISR (14.2% and 7.4%, p = 0.09). Results were also similar when only patients treated with DES in each group were compared and remained unchanged after adjusting for potential confounders in baseline characteristics. Time to BVS-ISR did not influence angiographic or clinical results. This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of coronary interventions for patients presenting with BVS-ISR. One-year clinical results in these patients are comparable to those seen in patients with ISR of metallic stents (ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT03167424).

• Publisher: Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
• Subject: Absorbable Implants - adverse effects / Aged / Balloon treatment / Biocompatibility / Biomedical materials / Blood vessels / Cardiology / Clinical outcomes / Clinical trials / Coronary Angiography / Coronary Artery Disease - diagnosis / Coronary Artery Disease - mortality / Coronary Artery Disease - surgery / Coronary Restenosis - diagnosis / Coronary Restenosis - epidemiology / Coronary Restenosis - surgery / Drug delivery / Female / Graft Occlusion, Vascular - diagnosis / Graft Occlusion, Vascular - epidemiology / Graft Occlusion, Vascular - surgery / Humans / Implants / Intervention / Male / Medical equipment / Medical imaging / Middle Aged / Myocardial infarction / Patients / Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - adverse effects / Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - instrumentation / Prospective Studies / Reoperation / Restenosis / Rib cage / Scaffolds / Stents / Stents - adverse effects / Time Factors / Treatment Outcome