Comparison of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis: A randomized RESTORE trial

Yiu Tung Anthony Wong, Do Yoon Kang, Jin Bae Lee, Seung-Woon Rha, Young Joon Hong, Eun Seok Shin, Sung Ho Her, Chang Wook Nam, Woo Young Chung, Moo Hyun Kim, Cheol Hyun Lee, Pil Hyung Lee, Jung Min Ahn, Soo Jin Kang, Seung Whan Lee, Young Hak Kim, Cheol Whan Lee, Seong Wook Park, Duk Woo Park, Seung Jung Park

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background This study sought to evaluate the optimal treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods This is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized study comparing the use of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation everolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of DES ISR. The primary end point was in-segment late loss at 9-month routine angiographic follow-up. Results A total of 172 patients were enrolled, and 74 (43.0%) patients underwent the angiographic follow-up. The primary end point was not different between the 2 treatment groups (DEB group 0.15 ± 0.49 mm vs DES group 0.19 ± 0.41 mm, P =.54). The secondary end points of in-segment minimal luminal diameter (MLD) (1.80 ± 0.69 mm vs 2.09 ± 0.46 mm, P =.03), in-stent MLD (1.90 ± 0.71 mm vs 2.29 ± 0.48 mm, P =.005), in-segment percent diameter stenosis (34% ± 21% vs 26% ± 15%, P =.05), and in-stent percent diameter stenosis (33% ± 21% vs 21% ± 15%, P =.002) were more favorable in the DES group. The composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 1 year was comparable between the 2 groups (DEB group 7.0% vs DES group 4.7%, P =.51). Conclusions Treatment of DES ISR using DEB or second-generation DES did not differ in terms of late loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up, whereas DES showed better angiographic results regarding minimal MLD and percent diameter stenosis. Both treatment strategies were safe and effective up to 1 year after the procedure.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)35-42
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Heart Journal
Volume197
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Mar 1

Fingerprint

Coronary Restenosis
Drug-Eluting Stents
Stents
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Pathologic Constriction
Therapeutics
Myocardial Infarction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis : A randomized RESTORE trial. / Wong, Yiu Tung Anthony; Kang, Do Yoon; Lee, Jin Bae; Rha, Seung-Woon; Hong, Young Joon; Shin, Eun Seok; Her, Sung Ho; Nam, Chang Wook; Chung, Woo Young; Kim, Moo Hyun; Lee, Cheol Hyun; Lee, Pil Hyung; Ahn, Jung Min; Kang, Soo Jin; Lee, Seung Whan; Kim, Young Hak; Lee, Cheol Whan; Park, Seong Wook; Park, Duk Woo; Park, Seung Jung.

In: American Heart Journal, Vol. 197, 01.03.2018, p. 35-42.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wong, YTA, Kang, DY, Lee, JB, Rha, S-W, Hong, YJ, Shin, ES, Her, SH, Nam, CW, Chung, WY, Kim, MH, Lee, CH, Lee, PH, Ahn, JM, Kang, SJ, Lee, SW, Kim, YH, Lee, CW, Park, SW, Park, DW & Park, SJ 2018, 'Comparison of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis: A randomized RESTORE trial', American Heart Journal, vol. 197, pp. 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2017.11.008
Wong, Yiu Tung Anthony ; Kang, Do Yoon ; Lee, Jin Bae ; Rha, Seung-Woon ; Hong, Young Joon ; Shin, Eun Seok ; Her, Sung Ho ; Nam, Chang Wook ; Chung, Woo Young ; Kim, Moo Hyun ; Lee, Cheol Hyun ; Lee, Pil Hyung ; Ahn, Jung Min ; Kang, Soo Jin ; Lee, Seung Whan ; Kim, Young Hak ; Lee, Cheol Whan ; Park, Seong Wook ; Park, Duk Woo ; Park, Seung Jung. / Comparison of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis : A randomized RESTORE trial. In: American Heart Journal. 2018 ; Vol. 197. pp. 35-42.
@article{a32f333f5d2040768399a724ec4c588e,
title = "Comparison of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis: A randomized RESTORE trial",
abstract = "Background This study sought to evaluate the optimal treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods This is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized study comparing the use of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation everolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of DES ISR. The primary end point was in-segment late loss at 9-month routine angiographic follow-up. Results A total of 172 patients were enrolled, and 74 (43.0{\%}) patients underwent the angiographic follow-up. The primary end point was not different between the 2 treatment groups (DEB group 0.15 ± 0.49 mm vs DES group 0.19 ± 0.41 mm, P =.54). The secondary end points of in-segment minimal luminal diameter (MLD) (1.80 ± 0.69 mm vs 2.09 ± 0.46 mm, P =.03), in-stent MLD (1.90 ± 0.71 mm vs 2.29 ± 0.48 mm, P =.005), in-segment percent diameter stenosis (34{\%} ± 21{\%} vs 26{\%} ± 15{\%}, P =.05), and in-stent percent diameter stenosis (33{\%} ± 21{\%} vs 21{\%} ± 15{\%}, P =.002) were more favorable in the DES group. The composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 1 year was comparable between the 2 groups (DEB group 7.0{\%} vs DES group 4.7{\%}, P =.51). Conclusions Treatment of DES ISR using DEB or second-generation DES did not differ in terms of late loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up, whereas DES showed better angiographic results regarding minimal MLD and percent diameter stenosis. Both treatment strategies were safe and effective up to 1 year after the procedure.",
author = "Wong, {Yiu Tung Anthony} and Kang, {Do Yoon} and Lee, {Jin Bae} and Seung-Woon Rha and Hong, {Young Joon} and Shin, {Eun Seok} and Her, {Sung Ho} and Nam, {Chang Wook} and Chung, {Woo Young} and Kim, {Moo Hyun} and Lee, {Cheol Hyun} and Lee, {Pil Hyung} and Ahn, {Jung Min} and Kang, {Soo Jin} and Lee, {Seung Whan} and Kim, {Young Hak} and Lee, {Cheol Whan} and Park, {Seong Wook} and Park, {Duk Woo} and Park, {Seung Jung}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ahj.2017.11.008",
language = "English",
volume = "197",
pages = "35--42",
journal = "American Heart Journal",
issn = "0002-8703",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis

T2 - A randomized RESTORE trial

AU - Wong, Yiu Tung Anthony

AU - Kang, Do Yoon

AU - Lee, Jin Bae

AU - Rha, Seung-Woon

AU - Hong, Young Joon

AU - Shin, Eun Seok

AU - Her, Sung Ho

AU - Nam, Chang Wook

AU - Chung, Woo Young

AU - Kim, Moo Hyun

AU - Lee, Cheol Hyun

AU - Lee, Pil Hyung

AU - Ahn, Jung Min

AU - Kang, Soo Jin

AU - Lee, Seung Whan

AU - Kim, Young Hak

AU - Lee, Cheol Whan

AU - Park, Seong Wook

AU - Park, Duk Woo

AU - Park, Seung Jung

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - Background This study sought to evaluate the optimal treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods This is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized study comparing the use of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation everolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of DES ISR. The primary end point was in-segment late loss at 9-month routine angiographic follow-up. Results A total of 172 patients were enrolled, and 74 (43.0%) patients underwent the angiographic follow-up. The primary end point was not different between the 2 treatment groups (DEB group 0.15 ± 0.49 mm vs DES group 0.19 ± 0.41 mm, P =.54). The secondary end points of in-segment minimal luminal diameter (MLD) (1.80 ± 0.69 mm vs 2.09 ± 0.46 mm, P =.03), in-stent MLD (1.90 ± 0.71 mm vs 2.29 ± 0.48 mm, P =.005), in-segment percent diameter stenosis (34% ± 21% vs 26% ± 15%, P =.05), and in-stent percent diameter stenosis (33% ± 21% vs 21% ± 15%, P =.002) were more favorable in the DES group. The composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 1 year was comparable between the 2 groups (DEB group 7.0% vs DES group 4.7%, P =.51). Conclusions Treatment of DES ISR using DEB or second-generation DES did not differ in terms of late loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up, whereas DES showed better angiographic results regarding minimal MLD and percent diameter stenosis. Both treatment strategies were safe and effective up to 1 year after the procedure.

AB - Background This study sought to evaluate the optimal treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods This is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized study comparing the use of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation everolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of DES ISR. The primary end point was in-segment late loss at 9-month routine angiographic follow-up. Results A total of 172 patients were enrolled, and 74 (43.0%) patients underwent the angiographic follow-up. The primary end point was not different between the 2 treatment groups (DEB group 0.15 ± 0.49 mm vs DES group 0.19 ± 0.41 mm, P =.54). The secondary end points of in-segment minimal luminal diameter (MLD) (1.80 ± 0.69 mm vs 2.09 ± 0.46 mm, P =.03), in-stent MLD (1.90 ± 0.71 mm vs 2.29 ± 0.48 mm, P =.005), in-segment percent diameter stenosis (34% ± 21% vs 26% ± 15%, P =.05), and in-stent percent diameter stenosis (33% ± 21% vs 21% ± 15%, P =.002) were more favorable in the DES group. The composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 1 year was comparable between the 2 groups (DEB group 7.0% vs DES group 4.7%, P =.51). Conclusions Treatment of DES ISR using DEB or second-generation DES did not differ in terms of late loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up, whereas DES showed better angiographic results regarding minimal MLD and percent diameter stenosis. Both treatment strategies were safe and effective up to 1 year after the procedure.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040018687&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85040018687&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.11.008

DO - 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.11.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 29447782

AN - SCOPUS:85040018687

VL - 197

SP - 35

EP - 42

JO - American Heart Journal

JF - American Heart Journal

SN - 0002-8703

ER -