Background: Limited data exist on ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stent (ultrathin DES) performance in DES in-stent restenosis (ISR). Aims: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ultrathin DES compared to thin-strut DES and drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for DES-ISR. Methods: Patients from the DEB Dragon (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04415216) and ULTRA registries (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05205148) were divided into ultrathin DES, thin-strut DES, or DEB groups for DES-ISR treatment. Both propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability weighting (IPW) were considered to adjust the distribution of patients in each class. Cox regression was applied to the following main endpoints: device-oriented composite endpoints (DOCE; including cardiac death, target lesion revascularisation [TLR] and target vessel myocardial infarction), TLR and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Results: A total of 269, 541, and 557 patients received an ultrathin DES, thin-strut DES, and DEB, respectively. After 3 years of follow-up, in the IPW-adjusted overall cohort, ultrathin DES were associated with a significantly reduced risk of DOCE compared to DEBs (hazard ratio [HR] 0.353, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.194-0.642; p<0.001), as well as thin-strut DES (HR 0.645, 95% CI: 0.457-0.911; p=0.013). Compared to DEBs, ultrathin DES also reduced the risks of both TLR (HR 0.184, 95% CI: 0.081-0.417; p<0.001) and TVR (HR 0.188, 95% CI: 0.093-0.379; p<0.001), while thin-strut DES did not (TLR: HR 0.686, 95% CI: 0.407-1.157; p=0.157; TVR: HR 0.706, 95% CI: 0.453-1.101; p=0.124). For diffuse ISR patients, ultrathin DES reduced the risk of DOCE (HR 0.364, 95% CI: 0.188-0.705; p=0.003), as did thin-strut DES (HR 0.602, 95% CI: 0.367-0.987; p=0.044), while a reduction of TLR (HR 0.220, 95% CI: 0.091-0.531; p<0.001) and TVR (HR 0.241, 95% CI: 0.113-0.513; p<0.001) was achieved only by ultrathin DES. Conclusions: Ultrathin DES were associated with reduced DOCE, TLR and TVR risks in diffuse ISR compared to DEBs.
Treatment of in-stent restenosis with ultrathin-strut versus thin-strut drug-eluting stents or drug-eluting balloons: a multicentre registry / De Filippo, Ovidio; Wańha, Wojciech; Sanavia, Tiziana; Januszek, Rafal; Giacobbe, Federico; Campo, Gianluca; Pinxterhuis, Tineke H; Capodanno, Davide; Tomasiewicz, Brunon; Iannaccone, Mario; Leone, Attilio; Wolny, Rafał; Bruno, Francesco; Patti, Giuseppe; Musumeci, Giuseppe; Liccardo, Gaetano; Verardi, Roberto; Roubin, Sergio Raposeiras; Tarantini, Giuseppe; Kuźma, Łukasz; Perl, Leor; Gagnor, Andrea; Reczuch, Krzysztof; Conrotto, Federico; Tuttolomondo, Domenico; Ploumen, Eline H; Niezgoda, Piotr; Caglioni, Serena; Omedè, Pierluigi; Greco, Antonio; Kubica, Jacek; Gil, Robert J; Piccolo, Raffaele; Kornowski, Ran; Bil, Jacek; Morena, Arianna; Zocca, Paolo; Pennone, Mauro; Gąsior, Mariusz; Jaguszewski, Miłosz; von Birgelen, Clemens; Fariselli, Piero; De Ferrari, Gaetano M; Wojakowski, Wojciech; D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio. - In: EUROINTERVENTION. - ISSN 1969-6213. - 20:21(2024), pp. e1340-e1354. [10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00491]
Treatment of in-stent restenosis with ultrathin-strut versus thin-strut drug-eluting stents or drug-eluting balloons: a multicentre registry
Piccolo, Raffaele;Morena, Arianna;
2024
Abstract
Background: Limited data exist on ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stent (ultrathin DES) performance in DES in-stent restenosis (ISR). Aims: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ultrathin DES compared to thin-strut DES and drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for DES-ISR. Methods: Patients from the DEB Dragon (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04415216) and ULTRA registries (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05205148) were divided into ultrathin DES, thin-strut DES, or DEB groups for DES-ISR treatment. Both propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability weighting (IPW) were considered to adjust the distribution of patients in each class. Cox regression was applied to the following main endpoints: device-oriented composite endpoints (DOCE; including cardiac death, target lesion revascularisation [TLR] and target vessel myocardial infarction), TLR and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Results: A total of 269, 541, and 557 patients received an ultrathin DES, thin-strut DES, and DEB, respectively. After 3 years of follow-up, in the IPW-adjusted overall cohort, ultrathin DES were associated with a significantly reduced risk of DOCE compared to DEBs (hazard ratio [HR] 0.353, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.194-0.642; p<0.001), as well as thin-strut DES (HR 0.645, 95% CI: 0.457-0.911; p=0.013). Compared to DEBs, ultrathin DES also reduced the risks of both TLR (HR 0.184, 95% CI: 0.081-0.417; p<0.001) and TVR (HR 0.188, 95% CI: 0.093-0.379; p<0.001), while thin-strut DES did not (TLR: HR 0.686, 95% CI: 0.407-1.157; p=0.157; TVR: HR 0.706, 95% CI: 0.453-1.101; p=0.124). For diffuse ISR patients, ultrathin DES reduced the risk of DOCE (HR 0.364, 95% CI: 0.188-0.705; p=0.003), as did thin-strut DES (HR 0.602, 95% CI: 0.367-0.987; p=0.044), while a reduction of TLR (HR 0.220, 95% CI: 0.091-0.531; p<0.001) and TVR (HR 0.241, 95% CI: 0.113-0.513; p<0.001) was achieved only by ultrathin DES. Conclusions: Ultrathin DES were associated with reduced DOCE, TLR and TVR risks in diffuse ISR compared to DEBs.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
