Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Usefulness of Drug-Eluting Balloons for Bare-Metal and Drug-Eluting In-Stent Restenosis (from the RIBS IV and V Randomized Trials)
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Usefulness of Drug-Eluting Balloons for Bare-Metal and Drug-Eluting In-Stent Restenosis (from the RIBS IV and V Randomized Trials)
Do you wish to request the book?
Usefulness of Drug-Eluting Balloons for Bare-Metal and Drug-Eluting In-Stent Restenosis (from the RIBS IV and V Randomized Trials)
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Usefulness of Drug-Eluting Balloons for Bare-Metal and Drug-Eluting In-Stent Restenosis (from the RIBS IV and V Randomized Trials)
2017
Overview
Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is particularly challenging. We sought to compare results of drug-eluting balloons in patients with DES-ISR with those in patients with bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR. A pooled analysis of the Restenosis Intra-Stent: Drug-Eluting Balloon versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent IV and V randomized trials was performed. Both trials had identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results of drug-eluting balloons in 95 patients with BMS-ISR and 154 patients with DES-ISR were compared. Patients with DES-ISR were more frequently diabetics, presented more often as an acute coronary syndrome and had more severe lesions and more frequently a focal pattern, including edge-ISR. Late angiographic findings (92% of eligible patients), including minimal lumen diameter (1.80 ± 0.6 vs 2.01 ± 0.6 mm, p = 0.001; absolute mean difference 0.21 mm; 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.38; p = 0.014) and restenosis rate (19% vs 9.5%, p <0.05) were poorer in DES-ISR. Results were consistent across 10 prespecified subgroups. Moreover, on multiple linear regression analysis, minimal lumen diameter at follow-up remained significantly smaller in patients with DES-ISR after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted absolute mean difference 0.17 mm; 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.41; p = 0.019). Finally, at 1-year clinical follow-up (100% of patients), rates of target vessel revascularization (16% vs 6%, p = 0.02) and of the main combined clinical end point (18% vs 8%, p = 0.03) were significantly higher in patients treated for DES-ISR. In conclusion, this study confirms the efficacy of DEB for patients with ISR. However, the long-term clinical and angiographic results of DEB are poorer in patients with DES-ISR than in those with BMS-ISR. (ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier:NCT01239953&NCT01239940).
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
