000			nab a22 7a 4500
999			_c17691 _d17691
003			PC17691
005			20231017121432.0
008			231017b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_cH12O
041			_aeng
100			_91241 _aVelázquez Martín, María Teresa _eCardiología
245	0	0	_aComparison of the Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Balloons in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis (from the RIBS IV and V Randomized Clinical Trials) _h[artículo]
260			_bThe American journal of cardiology, _c2016
300			_a117(4):546-54.
500			_aFormato Vancouver: Alfonso F, Pérez Vizcayno MJ, García Del Blanco B, García Touchard A, Masotti M, López Minguez JR et al; Restenosis Intra-Stent: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent (RIBS-IV and V Studies) Investigators (Under the auspices of the Interventional Cardiology Working Group of the Spanish Society of Cardiology). Comparison of the Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Balloons in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis (from the RIBS IV and V Randomized Clinical Trials). Am J Cardiol. 2016 Feb 15;117(4):546-54.
501			_aPMID: 26725102
504			_aContiene 27 referencias
520			_aTreatment of patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenge. This study sought to compare the efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) and drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) with paclitaxel in patients with ISR. A pooled analysis of the Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent (RIBS IV) and Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare-Metal Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent (RIBS V) randomized trials was performed using patient-level data. In both trials, EESs were compared with DEBs in patients with ISR (RIBS V included 189 patients with bare-metal ISR; RIBS IV included 309 patients with drug-eluting ISR). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical in both trials. A total of 249 patients were allocated to EES and 249 to DEB. Clinical follow-up at 1 year was obtained in all (100%) patients and late angiography (median 249 days) in 91% of eligible patients. Compared with patients treated with DEBs, patients treated with EESs obtained better short-term results (postprocedural minimal lumen diameter 2.28 ± 0.5 vs 2.12 ± 0.4 mm, p <0.0001). At follow-up, patients treated with EESs had larger in-segment minimal lumen diameter (primary end point 2.16 ± 0.7 vs 1.88 ± 0.6 mm, p <0.0001; absolute mean difference 0.28 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.40) and net lumen gain (1.33 ± 0.6 vs 1.00 ± 0.7 mm, p <0.0001) and had lower %diameter stenosis (19 ± 21% vs 28 ± 22%, p <0.0001) and binary restenosis rate (8.7% vs 15.7%, p = 0.02). Consistent results were observed in the in-lesion analysis. No interactions were found between the underlying stent type and treatment effects. At 1-year clinical follow-up, the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization was significantly reduced in the EES arm (8.8% vs 14.5%, p = 0.03; hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94) mainly driven by a lower need for target vessel revascularization (6% vs 12.4%, p = 0.01, hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.86). This pooled analysis of the RIBS IV and RIBS V randomized trials demonstrates the superiority of EES over DEB in the treatment of patients with ISR.
710			_9119 _aServicio de Cardiología
856			_uhttp://pc-h12o-es.m-hdoct.a17.csinet.es/pdf/pc/1/pc17691.pdf _ySolicitar documento
942			_2ddc _cART _n0