Alfonso, FernandoPerez-Vizcayno, Maria Josedel Blanco, Bruno GarciaGarcia-Touchard, ArturoLopez-Minguez, Jose-RamonMasotti, MonicaZueco, JavierMelgares, RafaelMainar, VicenteMoreno, RaulDominguez, AntonioSanchis, JuanBethencourt, ArmandoMoreu, JoseCequier, AngelMarti, VicensOtaegui, ImanolBastante, TeresaGonzalo, NievesJimenez-Quevedo, PilarCardenas, AlbertoFernandez, CristinaSpanish Soc Cardiology2023-02-122023-02-122016-07-011941-7640http://hdl.handle.net/10668/19086Background-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, Penangiographydrug-eluting stentseverolimusmetalregression analysisrestenosisCoated balloon angioplastyEfficacyNeoatherosclerosisImplantationMulticenterOutcomesSafetyresearch articleopen access10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.0034791941-7632https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003479380607800006