Suppr超能文献

载药支架与药物球囊治疗金属裸支架内再狭窄的长期疗效:RIBS V 临床试验 3 年随访结果。

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.

机构信息

Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.

Fundación Interhospitalaria Investigación Cardiovascular, Madrid, Spain; Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.

出版信息

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Jun 27;9(12):1246-1255. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.03.037. Epub 2016 Jun 20.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

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).

BACKGROUND

The relative long-term clinical efficacy of current therapeutic modalities in patients with ISR remains unknown.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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).

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较药物洗脱支架(DES)和药物洗脱球囊(DCB)在裸金属支架内再狭窄(ISR)患者中的长期疗效。

背景

目前治疗方式在 ISR 患者中的相对长期临床疗效尚不清楚。

方法

对 RIBS V(裸金属支架内再狭窄:药物洗脱球囊与依维莫司洗脱支架植入)随机临床试验中纳入的患者进行 3 年临床随访(预设终点)分析。所有患者每年均使用预先设定的结构化问卷进行随访。

结果

共 189 例 ISR 患者接受了 EES(n=94)或 DCB(n=95)治疗。所有患者均获得了 1 年、2 年和 3 年的临床随访(100%)。与 DCB 治疗组相比,EES 治疗组获得了更好的血管造影结果,包括随访时更大的最小管腔直径(主要研究终点;2.36±0.6mm vs. 2.01±0.6mm;p<0.001)。3 年时,DCB 组和 EES 组的心脏死亡(2% vs. 1%)、心肌梗死(4% vs. 5%)和靶血管血运重建(9% vs. 5%)发生率相似。然而,重要的是,EES 组 3 年时靶病变血运重建率显著较低(2% vs. 8%;p=0.04;风险比:0.23;95%置信区间:0.06 至 0.93)。2 组间“晚期”(>1 年)靶血管(3[3.2%] vs. 3[3.2%];p=0.95)和靶病变(1[1%] vs. 2[2.1%];p=0.54)血运重建的需求较低且相似。2 组间明确或可能的支架血栓形成(1% vs. 0%)发生率也相似。

结论

RIBS V 临床试验的 3 年临床随访证实了 EES 和 DCB 在治疗 ISR 患者中的安全性和疗效持久。在这种情况下,EES 可降低靶病变血运重建的需求,尤其是在长期随访中。(RIBS V[裸金属支架内再狭窄:紫杉醇洗脱球囊与依维莫司洗脱支架][RIBS V];NCT01239953)。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验