ORAl iMmunosuppressive therapy to prevent in-Stent rEstenosiS (RAMSES) cooperation: A patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials

Objective: The role of oral immunosuppressive therapy (OIT) to prevent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and stenting is still controversial. This study evaluates the impact of oral administration of prednisone or sirolimus to prevent restenosis. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of trials in which PCI-patients were randomized to bare metal stents (BMS) plus OIT (BMS + OIT group) versus BMS or drug-eluting stents alone (BMS/DES group). Primary endpoints were target lesion revascularization and death/myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary endpoints were death, MI, stent thrombosis and in-stent late lumen loss. Hazard ratio and weighted geometric mean difference [95% confidence intervals] served as summary statistics. Results: Individual data of seven trials (1246 patients [BMS + OIT, n = 608 versus BMS/DES, n = 638] with 1456 coronary lesions) were merged. At a median follow-up of 360 days, BMS + OIT versus BMS/DES significantly reduced the risk of revascularization (0.49 [0.24–0.98], P = 0.04). In particular, BMS + OIT reduced the risk of revascularization (0.38 [0.21–0.67], P < 0.001) and late lumen loss (−0.39 mm [−0.67, −0.11], P < 0.001) as compared with BMS alone. BMS + OIT versus BMS/DES showed a similar risk of death/MI (0.67 [0.29–1.53], P = 0.34), death (0.82 [0.25–2.69], P = 0.71), MI (0.58 [0.24–1.39], P = 0.22) and stent thrombosis (0.43 [0.10–1.87], P = 0.26). Conclusion: In patients undergoing PCI the use of BMS and oral immunosuppressive therapy reduces the risk of revascularization as compared with BMS alone but not as compared with DES alone, while these therapies display a similar risk of death/MI. The advantage of adding oral immunosuppressive therapy to BMS is due to a lower risk of restenosis as compared with BMS alone.