RT Journal Article
T1 Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Bare-Metal and Drug-Eluting In-Stent Restenosis Results From a Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of the RIBS IV and V Trials
A1 Alfonso, Fernando
A1 Perez-Vizcayno, Maria Jose
A1 del Blanco, Bruno Garcia
A1 Garcia-Touchard, Arturo
A1 Lopez-Minguez, Jose-Ramon
A1 Masotti, Monica
A1 Zueco, Javier
A1 Melgares, Rafael
A1 Mainar, Vicente
A1 Moreno, Raul
A1 Dominguez, Antonio
A1 Sanchis, Juan
A1 Bethencourt, Armando
A1 Moreu, Jose
A1 Cequier, Angel
A1 Marti, Vicens
A1 Otaegui, Imanol
A1 Bastante, Teresa
A1 Gonzalo, Nieves
A1 Jimenez-Quevedo, Pilar
A1 Cardenas, Alberto
A1 Fernandez, Cristina
A1 Spanish Soc Cardiology, 
K1 angiography
K1 drug-eluting stents
K1 everolimus
K1 metal
K1 regression analysis
K1 restenosis
K1 Coated balloon angioplasty
K1 Efficacy
K1 Neoatherosclerosis
K1 Implantation
K1 Multicenter
K1 Outcomes
K1 Safety
AB Background-Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is more challenging than that of patients with bare-metal stent ISR. However, the results of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in these distinct scenarios remain unsettled.Methods and Results-A pooled analysis of the RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) and RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) randomized trials was performed using patient-level data to compare the efficacy of EES in bare-metal stent ISR and DES-ISR. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical in both trials. Results of 94 patients treated with EES for bare-metal stent ISR were compared with those of 155 patients treated with EES for DES-ISR. Baseline characteristics were more adverse in patients with DES-ISR, although they presented later and more frequently with a focal pattern. After intervention, minimal lumen diameter (2.22 +/- 0.5 versus 2.38 +/- 0.5 mm, P=0.01) was smaller in the DES-ISR group. Late angiographic findings (89.3% of eligible patients), including minimal lumen diameter (2.03 +/- 0.7 versus 2.36 +/- 0.6 mm, P
PB Lippincott williams & wilkins
SN 1941-7640
YR 2016
FD 2016-07-01
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10668/19086
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10668/19086
LA en
DS RISalud
RD Apr 12, 2025