Search

Aims: Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PTX-B) treatment after bare metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients undergoing primary angioplasty., Methods and Results: After BMS implantation, patients were randomised (1:1) to treatment with a PTX-B or no PTX-B treatment (BMS group). The primary endpoint was in-stent late luminal loss (LLL) at nine-month follow-up. OCT was carried out on the first 20% of consecutive patients included in the study. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were randomised (BMS: 112, PTX-B: 111). At nine months, median LLL was 0.80 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 0.36-1.26) in the BMS group vs. 0.31 mm (IQR 0.00-0.58) in the PTX-B group, p<0.0001. Binary restenosis was significantly lower in the PTX-B group: 29.8% vs. 2.2%, p<0.0001, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.2-54.2. Nine-month OCT showed good strut coverage in both groups but greater in the BMS group (100±0.0% vs. 99.52±1.11%, p=0.03) with very low rates of malapposed struts per lesion. One-year MACE was significantly lower in the PTX-B group (12.5% vs. 3.6%, p=0.016)., Conclusions: PTX-B after successful BMS implantation resulted in less LLL and better clinical outcomes as compared with a BMS-only strategy. This was associated with good stent strut coverage and very low rates of malapposed struts.

Aims: In patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) several anatomic subgroups have been identified. ISR affecting the stent edge (EDG) is a poorly characterised subgroup with undefined therapeutic implications. We sought to determine the implications of ISR affecting the stent EDG., Methods and Results: 450 patients included in the "Restenosis Intra-stent: Balloon angioplasty vs elective Stenting" (RIBS) randomized study, were analysed. EDG ISR was predefined in the protocol and the pattern of ISR analysed in a centralized core-lab. Fifty-two patients (12%) had EDG ISR (29 stent group, 23 balloon arm). Patients with EDG ISR had less severe [minimal lumen diameter (MLD) (0.78+/-0.3 vs 0.66+/-0.3 mm, p=0.05)] and shorter lesions (lesion length 10.2+/-6 vs 13.2+/-7 mm, p=0.003). Patients with EDG ISR more frequently required crossover (12% vs 3%, p=0.006) but eventually the immediate angiographic result and the long-term clinical and angiographic outcome was similar to that found in patients without EDG ISR. Patients with EDG ISR treated in the balloon and stent arms had similar baseline characteristics. However, after intervention, the immediate angiographic result was better in the stent arm (MLD 2.79+/-0.4 vs 2.35+/-0.3 mm, p=0.001). This difference persisted at late follow-up: MLD (1.93+/-0.7 vs 1.39+/-0.7 mm, p=0.01), recurrent restenosis (20% vs 50%, p=0.03). In addition, the 1-year event-free survival was significantly better (83% vs 52%, log rank p=0.01; Cox HR 0.28, 95%CI 0.09-0.79) in the stent arm. Moreover, stent implantation was an independent predictor of freedom from target vessel revascularization (HR 0.15, 95%CI 0.03-0.67, p=0.003)., Conclusions: EDG ISR constitutes a specific subgroup with relevant therapeutic implications. In patients with EDG ISR, repeat stent implantation provides better clinical and angiographic outcome than conventional balloon angioplasty.