A Randomized Comparison of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Any In-Stent Restenosis: The DARE Trial.

The authors sought to evaluate the relative performance of a drug-eluting balloon (DEB) and a drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with any (bare-metal or drug-eluting stent) in-stent restenosis (ISR). The treatment of ISR remains challenging in contemporary clinical practice. In a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial, patients with any ISR were randomly allocated in a 1:1 fashion to treatment with a DEB (SeQuent Please paclitaxel-eluting balloon, B. Braun Melsungen, Melsungen, Germany), or a DES (XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California). The primary endpoint was noninferiority in terms of in-segment minimal lumen diameter (MLD) at 6-month angiographic follow-up. Secondary endpoints included angiographic parameters at 6 months and clinical follow-up up to 12 months. A total of 278 patients, of whom 56% had DES-ISR, were randomized at 8 sites to treatment with DEB (n = 141) or DES (n = 137). As compared with DEB, DES was associated with larger MLD and lower % stenosis immediately post-procedure (1.84 ± 0.46 vs. 1.72 ± 0.35; p = 0.018; and 26 ± 10% vs. 30 ± 10%; p = 0.03). Angiographic follow up was completed at 196 ± 53 days in 79% of patients. With respect to the primary endpoint of in-segment MLD at 6 months, DEB was noninferior to DES (DEB 1.71 ± 0.51 mm vs. DES 1.74 ± 0.61 mm; p for noninferiority <0.0001). Target vessel revascularization at 12-month follow-up was similar in both groups (DES 7.1% vs. DEB 8.8%; p = 0.65). In patients with ISR, treatment with DEB was noninferior compared with DES in terms of 6-month MLD. There were no differences in clinical endpoints, including target vessel revascularization up to 12 months. Therefore, use of a DEB is an attractive treatment option for in-stent restenosis, withholding the need for additional stent implantation.

Baan J Jr ，Claessen BE ，Dijk KB ，Vendrik J ，van der Schaaf RJ ，Meuwissen M ，van Royen N ，Gosselink ATM ，van Wely MH ，Dirkali A ，Arkenbout EK ，de Winter RJ ，Koch KT ，Sjauw KD ，Beijk MA ，Vis MM ，Wykrzykowska JJ ，Piek JJ ，Tijssen JGP ，Henriques JPS ... -  《-》

Long-Term Results of Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Balloons in Patients With Bare-Metal In-Stent Restenosis: 3-Year Follow-Up of the RIBS V Clinical Trial.

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in patients with bare-metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR). The relative long-term clinical efficacy of current therapeutic modalities in patients with ISR remains unknown. The 3-year clinical follow-up (pre-specified endpoint) of patients included in the RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare-Metal Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation) randomized clinical trial was analyzed. All patients were followed yearly using a pre-defined structured questionnaire. A total of 189 patients with bare-metal stent ISR were allocated to either EES (n = 94) or DEB (n = 95). Clinical follow-up at 1, 2, and 3 years was obtained in all patients (100%). Compared with patients treated with DEB, those treated with EES obtained better angiographic results, including larger minimal luminal diameter at follow-up (primary study endpoint; 2.36 ± 0.6 mm vs. 2.01 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.001). At 3 years, the rates of cardiac death (2% vs. 1%), myocardial infarction (4% vs. 5%) and target vessel revascularization (9% vs. 5%) were similar in the DEB and EES arms. Importantly, however, at 3 years, the rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the EES arm (2% vs. 8%; p = 0.04; hazard ratio: 0.23; 95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.93). The need for "late" (>1 year) target vessel (3 [3.2%] vs. 3 [3.2%]; p = 0.95) and target lesion (1 [1%] vs. 2 [2.1%]; p = 0.54) revascularization was low and similar in the 2 arms. Rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis (1% vs. 0%) were also similar in the 2 arms. The 3-year clinical follow-up of the RIBS V clinical trial confirms the sustained safety and efficacy of EES and DEB in patients treated for bare-metal stent ISR. In this setting, EES reduce the need for target lesion revascularization at very long-term follow-up. (RIBS V [Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent] [RIBS V]; NCT01239953).

Alfonso F ，Pérez-Vizcayno MJ ，García Del Blanco B ，Otaegui I ，Masotti M ，Zueco J ，Veláquez M ，Sanchís J ，García-Touchard A ，Lázaro-García R ，Moreu J ，Bethencourt A ，Cuesta J ，Rivero F ，Cárdenas A ，Gonzalo N ，Jiménez-Quevedo P ，Fernández C ，RIBS V Study Investigators ... -  《-》

Paclitaxel-eluting balloon versus everolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus and in-stent restenosis: Insights from the randomized DARE trial.

To investigate the relative performance of treatment with a paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) compared with an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). ISR remains a challenge in contemporary clinical practice, particularly in patients with DM. In the multicenter randomized DARE trial, patients with BMS or DES ISR were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to treatment with a PEB or an EES. Patients underwent angiographic follow-up after 6 months. For the purpose of this analysis, the relative performance of PEB versus EES in diabetic patients was investigated. Of 278 patients enrolled in DARE, 88 (32%) had DM, of whom 46 were randomized to EES and 42 to PEB treatment. Of patients with DM, 48 (55%) had DES-ISR. Angiographic follow-up was available in 30 patients (72%) in the PEB group and 36 patients (78%) in the DES group. There were no differences in terms of 6-months minimal lumen diameter in diabetic patients treated with EES (1.46 ± 0.66 mm) versus PEB (1.78 ± 0.58 mm, P = 0.15). Adverse events at one year follow-up were similar in both groups, with Major Adverse Events (MAE, death, target vessel MI, or TVR) occurring in 17.4% in the EES group versus 11.9% in the PEB group, P = 0.44. In patients with ISR and DM, use of a PEB resulted in similar 6-months in-segment minimal lumen diameter and comparable rates of MAE. In-segment late loss at 6 months was significantly lower in the PEB arm. Although larger trials in DM patients with ISR are necessary, PEB is a promising treatment option obviating the need for additional stent implantation.

Claessen BE ，Henriques JPS ，Vendrik J ，Boerlage-van Dijk K ，van der Schaaf RJ ，Meuwissen M ，van Royen N ，Gosselink ATM ，van Wely MH ，Dirkali A ，Arkenbout EK ，Piek JJ ，Baan J Jr ... -  《-》

3-Year Clinical Follow-Up of the RIBS IV Clinical Trial: A Prospective Randomized Study of Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis in Coronary Arteries Previously Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents.

This study sought to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DES). Treatment of patients with DES-ISR remains a challenge. The RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloons vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents) trial is a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing DEB and EES in patients with DES-ISR. The pre-specified comparison of the 3-year clinical outcomes obtained with these interventions is the main objective of the present study. A total of 309 patients with DES-ISR were randomized to DEB (n = 154) or EES (n = 155). At angiographic follow-up, the in-segment minimal lumen diameter was larger in the EES arm (2.03 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.80 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.01). Three-year clinical follow-up was obtained in all enrolled patients (100%). The combined clinical outcome measure of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization was significantly reduced in the EES arm (19 [12.3%] vs. 31 [20.1%]; p = 0.04; hazard ratio: 0.57 [95% confidence interval: 0.34 to 0.96]), driven by a lower need for target lesion revascularization (11 [7.1%] vs. 24 [15.6%]; p = 0.015; hazard ratio: 0.43 [95% confidence interval: 0.21 to 0.87]). The need for "late" (>1 year) target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 4%) and target vessel revascularization (4% vs. 6.6%) was similar in the 2 arms. Rates of cardiac death (3.9% vs. 3.2%), myocardial infarction (2.6% vs. 4.5%), and stent thrombosis (1.3% vs. 2.6%) at 3 years were also similar in both arms. The 3-year clinical follow-up of this randomized clinical trial demonstrates that in patients with DES-ISR, EES reduce the need for repeat interventions compared with DEB. (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloons vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents [RIBS IV]; NCT01239940).

Alfonso F ，Pérez-Vizcayno MJ ，Cuesta J ，García Del Blanco B ，García-Touchard A ，López-Mínguez JR ，Masotti M ，Zueco J ，Cequier A ，Velázquez M ，Moreno R ，Mainar V ，Domínguez A ，Moris C ，Molina E ，Rivero F ，Jiménez-Quevedo P ，Gonzalo N ，Fernández-Pérez C ，RIBS IV Study Investigators (Under the Auspices of the Interventional Cardiology Working Group of the Spanish Society of Cardiology) ... -  《-》

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) in PCI for in-stent restenosis (ISR): rationale and design of the SEDUCE (Safety and Efficacy of a Drug elUting balloon in Coronary artery rEstenosis) study.

Adriaenssens T ，Dens J ，Ughi G ，Coosemans M ，Onsea K ，Dubois C ，Sinnaeve P ，Vrolix M ，Desmet W ... -  《-》