Search

There is limited data on the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with recurrent in-stent restenosis (R-ISR).To compare the long-term outcomes of patients treated with either a thin-strut drug-eluting stent (thin-DES) or a drug-eluting balloon (DEB) for R-ISR in a drug-eluting stent (DES).A multicenter DEB-DRAGON registry was used to retrospectively identify patients with R-ISR who received either a thin-DES or a DEB. Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for baseline differences. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR).Out of 311 patients (mean age, 67 years; 63% male) with R-ISR, 86 (27.7%) were treated with a thin-DES and 225 (72.3%) with a DEB. Median follow-up was 2.6 years. TLR occurred in 18 (20.9%) patients who received thin-DES and 61 (27.1%) patients treated with DEB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.98; log-rank P = 0.04). The difference remained significant in a propensity score-matched cohort of 57 patients treated with thin-DES and 57 patients treated with a DEB (17.5 vs. 33.3%, respectively; HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17-0.86; P = 0.01). The risks of device-oriented adverse cardiac events and all-cause mortality were similar after thin-DES or DEB in both unadjusted and propensity score-matched cohorts. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model, the treatment with a thin-DES was an independent predictor of a TLR-free survival (HR, 0.33; 95% CI 0.13-0.84; P = 0.02).In patients with R-ISR implantation of a thin-DES is associated with a lower risk of repeated revascularization compared with angioplasty with a DEB.

Background: Data regarding the use of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting balloons (DEB) versus thin-strut drug-eluting stents (thin-DES) for treating DES in-stent restenosis in everyday clinical practice is scarce. Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of DEB versus thin-DES in DES in-stent restenosis. Methods: Consecutive patients with DES in-stent restenosis who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention between 2008 and 2019 entered the multicenter DEB-DRAGON Registry with a follow-up of 3 years. Patients who received DEB at the index procedure (n=557, 49.9%) were compared with those who received thin-DES (n=560, 50.1%). Results: Analysis of the unmatched cohort revealed lower rates of target lesion revascularization (9.1% versus 13.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.41–0.83], P =0.003), target vessel revascularization (11.8% versus 16.7%; HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45–0.84], P =0.003) and device-oriented composite end point, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel myocardial infarction (12.7% versus 16.0%; HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.50–0.94], P =0.018) in the thin-DES group compared with the DEB group. The incidence of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction, and myocardial infarction were similar in both groups. However, after propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in target lesion revascularization (11.2% versus 11.2%; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.55–1.51], P =0.707), target vessel revascularization (13.4% versus 14.2%; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.55–1.36], P =0.523), and device-oriented composite end point (14.2% versus 14.2%; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.58–1.42], P =0.667) between the thin-DES and DEB group, respectively. Conclusions: This analysis of a real-life registry revealed similar long-term outcomes of thin-DES and DEB in DES in-stent restenosis regarding target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and device-oriented composite end point. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04415216.