CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Scientific Library

Abstract

Recommended Article

Comparison of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis: A randomized RESTORE trial Chronic Total Occlusion Interventions: Update on Current Tips and Tricks Prognostic Implications of Plaque Characteristics and Stenosis Severity in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Clinical Outcomes Following Coronary Bifurcation PCI Techniques: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis Comprising 5,711 Patients Levosimendan Improves Hemodynamics and Exercise Tolerance in PH-HFpEF: Results of the Randomized Placebo-Controlled HELP Trial Lesion-Specific and Vessel-Related Determinants of Fractional Flow Reserve Beyond Coronary Artery Stenosis The association between body mass index and obesity with survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension Asia Pacific Consensus Document on Coronary Bifurcation Interventions

Original Research2018 Mar;197:35-42.

JOURNAL:Am Heart J. Article Link

Comparison of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis: A randomized RESTORE trial

Wong YTA, Kang DY, Park DW et al. Keywords: drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis; drug-coated balloon

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - This study sought to evaluate the optimal treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DESs).


METHODS - This is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized study comparing the use of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation everolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of DES ISR. The primary end point was in-segment late loss at 9-month routine angiographic follow-up.

RESULTS - A total of 172 patients were enrolled, and 74 (43.0%) patients underwent the angiographic follow-up. The primary end point was not different between the 2 treatment groups (DEB group 0.15±0.49 mm vs DES group 0.19±0.41 mm, P=.54). The secondary end points of in-segment minimal luminal diameter (MLD) (1.80±0.69 mm vs 2.09±0.46 mm, P=.03), in-stent MLD (1.90±0.71 mm vs 2.29±0.48 mm, P=.005), in-segment percent diameter stenosis (34%±21% vs 26%±15%, P=.05), and in-stent percent diameter stenosis (33%±21% vs 21%±15%, P=.002) were more favorable in the DES group. The composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 1 year was comparable between the 2 groups (DEB group 7.0% vs DES group 4.7%, P=.51).

CONCLUSIONS - Treatment of DES ISR using DEB or second-generation DES did not differ in terms of late loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up, whereas DES showed better angiographic results regarding minimal MLD and percent diameter stenosis. Both treatment strategies were safe and effective up to 1 year after the procedure.

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.