{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06542502387774594, 'fraction_numerical': 0.033428844317096466, 'mean_word_length': 4.835654596100278, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A quantitative coronary angiography-matched comparison between a prospective randomised multicentre cutting balloon angioplasty and bare metal stent trial (REDUCE III) and the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluation At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) study.

AIMS
There remains significant concern about the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents (DES). However, bare metal stents (BMS) have been used safely for over two decades. There is therefore a pressing need to explore alternative strategies for reducing restenosis with BMS. This study was designed to examine whether IVUS-guided cutting balloon angioplasty (CBA) with BMS could convey similar restenosis rates to DES.


METHODS AND RESULTS
In the randomised REstenosis reDUction by Cutting balloon angioplasty Evaluation (REDUCE III) study, 521 patients were divided into four groups based on device and IVUS use before BMS (IVUS-CBA-BMS: 137 patients; Angio-CBA-BMS: 123; IVUS-BA-BMS: 142; and Angio-BA-BMS: 119). At follow-up, the IVUS-CBA-BMS group had a significantly lower restenosis rate (6.6%) than the other groups (p=0.016). We performed a quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) based matched comparison between an IVUS-guided CBA-BMS strategy (REDUCE III) and a DES strategy (Rapamycin-Eluting-Stent Evaluation At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital, the RESEARCH study). We matched the presence of diabetes, vessel size, and lesion severity by QCA. Restenosis (>50% diameter stenosis at follow-up) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) were examined. QCA-matched comparison resulted in 120-paired lesions. While acute gain was significantly greater in IVUS-CBA-BMS than DES (1.65±0.41 mm vs. 1.28±0.57 mm, p=0.001), late loss was significantly less with DES than with IVUS-CBA-BMS (0.03±0.42 mm vs. 0.80±0.47 mm, p=0.001). However, no difference was found in restenosis rates (IVUS-CBA-BMS: 6.6% vs. DES: 5.0%, p=0.582) and TVR (6.6% and 6.6%, respectively).


CONCLUSIONS
An IVUS-guided CBA-BMS strategy yielded restenosis rates similar to those achieved by DES and provided an effective alternative to the use of DES.