Percutaneous coronary interventional strategies for treatment of in-stent restenosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents is the standard of care for treatment of native coronary artery stenoses, but optimum treatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) have not been established. We aimed to compare and rank percutaneous treatment strategies for ISR. METHODS We did a network meta-analysis to synthesise both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for randomised controlled trials published up to Oct 31, 2014, of different PCI strategies for treatment of any type of coronary ISR. The primary outcome was percent diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014191. FINDINGS We deemed 27 trials eligible, including 5923 patients, with follow-up ranging from 6 months to 60 months after the index intervention. Angiographic follow-up was available for 4975 (84%) of 5923 patients 6-12 months after the intervention. PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was the most effective treatment for percent diameter stenosis, with a difference of -9·0% (95% CI -15·8 to -2·2) versus drug-coated balloons (DCB), -9·4% (-17·4 to -1·4) versus sirolimus-eluting stents, -10·2% (-18·4 to -2·0) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents, -19·2% (-28·2 to -10·4) versus vascular brachytherapy, -23·4% (-36·2 to -10·8) versus bare metal stents, -24·2% (-32·2 to -16·4) versus balloon angioplasty, and -31·8% (-44·8 to -18·6) versus rotablation. DCB were ranked as the second most effective treatment, but without significant differences from sirolimus-eluting (-0·2% [95% CI -6·2 to 5·6]) or paclitaxel-eluting (-1·2% [-6·4 to 4·2]) stents. INTERPRETATION These findings suggest that two strategies should be considered for treatment of any type of coronary ISR: PCI with everolimus-eluting stents because of the best angiographic and clinical outcomes, and DCB because of its ability to provide favourable results without adding a new stent layer. FUNDING None.

Impact of the early use of immunomodulators or TNF antagonists on bowel damage and surgery in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND The impact of early treatment with immunomodulators (IM) and/or TNF antagonists on bowel damage in Crohn's disease (CD) patients is unknown. AIM To assess whether 'early treatment' with IM and/or TNF antagonists, defined as treatment within a 2-year period from the date of CD diagnosis, was associated with development of lesser number of disease complications when compared to 'late treatment', which was defined as treatment initiation after >2 years from the time of CD diagnosis. METHODS Data from the Swiss IBD Cohort Study were analysed. The following outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazard modelling: bowel strictures, perianal fistulas, internal fistulas, intestinal surgery, perianal surgery and any of the aforementioned complications. RESULTS The 'early treatment' group of 292 CD patients was compared to the 'late treatment' group of 248 CD patients. We found that 'early treatment' with IM or TNF antagonists alone was associated with reduced risk of bowel strictures [hazard ratio (HR) 0.496, P = 0.004 for IM; HR 0.276, P = 0.018 for TNF antagonists]. Furthermore, 'early treatment' with IM was associated with reduced risk of undergoing intestinal surgery (HR 0.322, P = 0.005), and perianal surgery (HR 0.361, P = 0.042), as well as developing any complication (HR 0.567, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS Treatment with immunomodulators or TNF antagonists within the first 2 years of CD diagnosis was associated with reduced risk of developing bowel strictures, when compared to initiating these drugs >2 years after diagnosis. Furthermore, early immunomodulators treatment was associated with reduced risk of intestinal surgery, perianal surgery and any complication.