1 / 14

Fernando Alfonso MD, PhD, FESC Hospital Universitario “La Princesa ” Madrid. Spain

RIBS IV. A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloons Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary In-Stent Restenosis of Drug-Eluting Stents: The RIBS IV Clinical Trial. Fernando Alfonso MD, PhD, FESC Hospital Universitario “La Princesa ” Madrid. Spain

sharon-carney
Download Presentation

Fernando Alfonso MD, PhD, FESC Hospital Universitario “La Princesa ” Madrid. Spain

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RIBS IV A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloons Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary In-Stent Restenosis of Drug-Eluting Stents: The RIBS IV Clinical Trial Fernando Alfonso MD, PhD, FESC Hospital Universitario “La Princesa” Madrid. Spain On Behalf of the RIBS IV Investigators

  2. RIBS IV Background: • Treatment of patients with DES-ISR remains a challenge • In this setting, DES provide better results than classical coronary interventions. • Drug-eluting balloons (DEB) are also very effective in patients with BMS-ISR and DES-ISR, with results superior to those obtained by conventional BA and equivalent to those seen with 1st Generation DES • However, the value of DEB compared with 2nd Generation DES in patients with DES-ISR remains unknown

  3. RIBS IV 10 2 9 22 6 5 7 8 23 16 14 12 15 21 13 4 19 20 3 1 11 18 17 RIBS IV: (Restenosis Intra-stent: DEB vs EES) Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized 1.- ALICANTE H U General.2.- ASTURIAS H U Central Asturias. 3.- BADAJOZ H U Infanta Cristina.4.- BALEARES H U Son Espases. 5.- BARCELONA H U Bellvitge.6.- BARCELONA H U Clínico.7.- BARCELONA H U Santa Cruz y San Pablo.8.- BARCELONA H U Valle de Hebrón.9.- CANTABRIA H U Marqués de Valdecilla.10.- CORUÑA H U Juan Canalejo. 11.- GRANADA H U Virgen de las Nieves.12.- MADRID H U Doce de Octubre.13.- MADRID H U La Paz. 14.- MADRID H U La Princesa.15.- MADRID H U Puerta de Hierro. 16.- MADRID H U Clínico San Carlos.17.- MALAGA H U Carlos Haya.18.- MALAGA H U Virgen de la Victoria.19. TOLEDO H U Virgen de la Salud Toledo. 20.- VALENCIA H U Clínico.21.- VALENCIA H U General. 22.- VIGO H U Meixoeiro. 23.- ZARAGOZA H U Miguel Servet. Steering Committee. QCA & Clinical Events Committee Under the Auspices PCI WG Spanish Society of Cardiology Coordinator Center: HU Clínico San Carlos. Madrid. Investigators´ Driven Initiative Unrestricted Grants: B. Braun & Abbott Vascular

  4. RIBS IV Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria Inclusion: Exclusion: Stent Related: • Stent location undefined • ISR <1 Month • Thrombus • Vessel diameter < 2 mm • ISR length > 30 mm • ISR outside the Stent General: • Life expectancy < 1 y • Female in childbearing age • Problems FU angiography • Intolerance ASA/Clopidogrel • LVEF < 25% • Informed consent • Age 20 - 85 y • DES ISR (> 50% stenosis) • Angina or silent ischemia • ISR amenable for BA & Stent

  5. RIBS IV (Januray 2010 – August 2013) Rx Centralized Stratification: ISR Length & Edge 309 Pts DES-ISR Inclusion Criteria Informed Consent Randomization 155 Pts 154 Pts Xience Prime (Abbott Vascular) SeQuent Please (B. Braun) EES DEB 100% Angiographic Success 4 Died 18 Refused 3 Died 12 Refused 139 Pts 133 Pts QCA Primary End-point Angio FU Angio FU Mean: 279 days (Median: 248) Mean: 266 days (Median: 246) (272 Patients: 90% of Eligible)

  6. RIBS IV EES DEB QCA: In-Segment Analysis Reference Diameter Lesion Length (mm) (mm) 2.67+0.5 2.59+0.5 10.7+5 10.4+6 p = 0. 21 p = 0.56 CAAS II System

  7. RIBS IV EES DEB QCA: In-Segment Analysis MLD-FU (mm) p = 0.004 2.03 In-Segment (Primary Endpoint) 1.80 Seg Lesion MLD-FU (mm) p < 0.0001 2.20 1.89 In-Lesion

  8. RIBS IV __ EES __ DEB Cumulative Frequency Distribution Curves (%) RE 15 (11%) 27 (19%) p = 0.06 RR (95%CI)1.44 (0.94-2.20) POST PRE p < 0.001 FU p = 0.009 (%) Stenosis In-Segment Intention to Treat

  9. RIBS IV 0.18+0.6 vs 0.30+0.6 mm EES DEB In-Segment Analysis (QCA) Late Loss 30 20 10 (mm) 0 0.14 0.06 -1,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 4,00 (-0.20 – 0.40) (-0.18 – 0.65) 3,00 Kolmogorov-Smirnov <0.05 2,00 *p = 0.06 1,00 30 0,00 20 -1,00 10 0 * median (IQR); Mann-Whitney “U” -1,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00

  10. RIBS IV MACE (Exclusive) EES: 10 (7%) p = 0.009 HR 0.39 (95%CI 0.19-0.83) DEB: 24 (16%) Events at Final FU (1 Year) 1 Year FU 309P (100%); FU Time 360+35 days MACE (Cardiac Death, MI, TLR):Non-exclusive 19 6 5 2 2 2 1 1 C Death (4) AMI (7)+ CABG TLR (2) PCI TLR (25) + 3 Definitive ST Thrombosis (1 EES y 2 DEB [all after re-PCI & stenting]) Intention to Treat

  11. RIBS IV __ EES __ DEB Clinical Follow-up: 1 Year FU 309P (100%); FU Time 360+35 days 96% % 100 87% 80 Breslow, p = 0.008 Log Rank, p = 0.008 60 40 20 Freedom from TLR 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Time (months)

  12. RIBS IV __ EES __ DEB Clinical Follow-up: 1 Year FU 309P (100%); FU Time 360+35 days % 90% 100 80 82% Breslow, p = 0.047 Log Rank, p = 0.044 60 40 20 Freedom from MACE (Cardiac Death, MI, TVR) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Time (months)

  13. RIBS IV DEBvsBAin the RIBS Trials MLD FU Late Loss (mm) (mm) p < 0.01 p < 0.05 0.77+0.7 0.73+0.7 2.01+0.6 1.80+0.6 1.52+0.7 1.52+0.7 0.30+0.6 0.14+0.5 BA RIBS I BA RIBS II DEB RIBS V DEB RIBS IV BA RIBS I BA RIBS II DEB RIBS V DEB RIBS IV BMS-ISR DES-ISR BMS-ISR DES-ISR (QCA) In-Segment Analysis

  14. RIBS IV Conclusions: • In patients with DES-ISR EES provide superior late angiographic results than DEB (MLD 1ry end-point) • In these patients EES also provide better late clinical results, driven by a significant reduction in the rate of TLR • Treatment of DES-ISR remains challenging and associated with poorer clinical and angiographic results than treatment of BMS-ISR. Further studies (more patients & longer follow-up) are still warranted in this adverse setting.

More Related