Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2024 Aug 12;17(15):1825-1836.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2024.05.038.

Long-Term Results of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: The RIBS VI Study

Affiliations
Free article
Multicenter Study

Long-Term Results of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: The RIBS VI Study

Javier Cuesta et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. .
Free article

Abstract

Background: In patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) provide similar results to drug-coated balloons (DCBs) but are inferior to drug-eluting stents (DES) at 1 year. However, the long-term efficacy of BVS in these patients remains unknown.

Objectives: This study sought to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of BVS in patients with ISR.

Methods: RIBS VI (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment; NCT02672878) and RIBS VI Scoring (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment With Scoring Balloon; NTC03069066) are prospective multicenter studies designed to evaluate the results of BVS in patients with ISR (N = 220). The inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical to those used in the RIBS IV (ISR of DES) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Drug-eluting Stents: Drug-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239940) and RIBS V (ISR of bare-metal stents) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239953) randomized trials (including 249 ISR patients treated with DCBs and 249 ISR patients treated with DES). A prespecified comparison of the long-term results obtained with these treatment modalities (ie, DES, DCBs, and BVS) was performed.

Results: Clinical follow-up at 3 years was obtained in all (100%) 718 patients. The 3-year target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was 14.1% (vs 12.9% after DCBs [not significant], and 5.2% after DES [HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.47-5.36; P = 0.001]). In a landmark analysis (>1 year), the target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was higher than after DES (adjusted HR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.15-10.08) and DCBs (adjusted HR: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.14-9.70). Very late vessel thrombosis was also more frequent with BVS (BVS: 1.8%, DCBs: 0.4%, DES: 0%; P = 0.03).

Conclusions: In patients with ISR, late clinical results of DES are superior to those obtained with DCBs and BVS. Beyond the first year, DCBs are safer and more effective than BVS.

Keywords: bioresorbable vascular scaffold; drug-eluting balloons; drug-eluting stent(s); in-stent restenosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources