High systemic inflammation as a novel cardiovascular risk factor and target for anti-cytokine therapy: comment regarding the triglyceride glucose index.

In the last century, there has been more than enough research that proved the association of high lipid and glucose levels with cardiovascular disease, thus establishing the current well-known traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as dyslipidemia, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. Hence, these cardiovascular risk factors are target therapy for glucose and lipid-lowering agents to prevent adverse cardiovascular events. However, despite controlling the lipid and glucose levels, some studies demonstrated the subclinical atherosclerosis suggesting that these cardiovascular risk factors alone cannot account for the entire atherosclerosis burden. In the last years, large-scale clinical trials demonstrated the operation of the inflammatory pathway in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) by the immune system, both the innate (neutrophils, macrophages) and adaptive (T cell and other lymphocytes) limbs, contribute to atherosclerosis and atherothrombosis. In this regard, some studies that use antiinflammatory therapy targeting the immune system by modulating or blocking interleukins, also known as anti-cytokine therapy, have been shown to reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with previous coronary artery disease. In this regard, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of colchicine 0.5 mg once daily for reducing cardiovascular events in patients who have established ASCVD and high residual systemic inflammation. Therefore, measuring the systemic inflammation can improve the cardiovascular risk assessment and identify the subsets of patients that will benefit from anti-cytokine therapy after diagnosis of ASCVD or after myocardial revascularization.

Long-Term Results of Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Balloons in Patients With Bare-Metal In-Stent Restenosis: 3-Year Follow-Up of the RIBS V Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in patients with bare-metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: The relative long-term clinical efficacy of current therapeutic modalities in patients with ISR remains unknown. METHODS: The 3-year clinical follow-up (pre-specified endpoint) of patients included in the RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare-Metal Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation) randomized clinical trial was analyzed. All patients were followed yearly using a pre-defined structured questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients with bare-metal stent ISR were allocated to either EES (n = 94) or DEB (n = 95). Clinical follow-up at 1, 2, and 3 years was obtained in all patients (100%). Compared with patients treated with DEB, those treated with EES obtained better angiographic results, including larger minimal luminal diameter at follow-up (primary study endpoint; 2.36 ± 0.6 mm vs. 2.01 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.001). At 3 years, the rates of cardiac death (2% vs. 1%), myocardial infarction (4% vs. 5%) and target vessel revascularization (9% vs. 5%) were similar in the DEB and EES arms. Importantly, however, at 3 years, the rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the EES arm (2% vs. 8%; p = 0.04; hazard ratio: 0.23; 95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.93). The need for "late" (>1 year) target vessel (3 [3.2%] vs. 3 [3.2%]; p = 0.95) and target lesion (1 [1%] vs. 2 [2.1%]; p = 0.54) revascularization was low and similar in the 2 arms. Rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis (1% vs. 0%) were also similar in the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year clinical follow-up of the RIBS V clinical trial confirms the sustained safety and efficacy of EES and DEB in patients treated for bare-metal stent ISR. In this setting, EES reduce the need for target lesion revascularization at very long-term follow-up. (RIBS V [Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent] [RIBS V]; NCT01239953).

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).

Treatment 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.