Restenosis treatment in the drug-eluting stent era.

Despite recent advances, the in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenging problem in interventional cardiology with an estimated overall restenosis rate of 20%, 25-30% in bare metal stents and 12% in drug-eluting stents (DES). In this review, we provide an overview of therapeutic options which include balloon angioplasty, cutting balloon, debulking techniques, brachytherapy and DES. Intracoronary brachytherapy using beta or gamma radiation had been considered the standard of care for some years. However, the use of DES to treat ISR has been shown to be safe, effective and ease-of-use for the prevention of recurrent restenosis. ISR after DES when focal angiographic pattern is present can be often treated with balloon angioplasty whereas if a non-focal pattern is recognized a new DES implantation is indicated. Waiting for a definitive answer regarding the optimal treatment of ISR from ongoing trials, we present our current approach to ISR.     

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents versus vascular brachytherapy for saphenous vein graft in-stent restenosis

We investigated the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DESs) for the treatment of patients who presented with in-stent restenosis (ISR) of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) and compared the in-hospital and 6-month clinical outcomes of DESs with those of intravascular brachytherapy and balloon angioplasty alone. Records of 187 patients who presented with ISR of SVGs were analyzed. Of these, 34 consecutive patients were treated with DES implantation, 93 were treated with intravascular brachytherapy (n = 60 with gamma-radiation, n = 33 with beta-radiation), and 60 patients underwent conventional treatment with balloon angioplasty alone. Clinical and angiographic characteristics at baseline were comparable between groups. The DES group had less non-Q-wave myocardial infarction than did the intravascular brachytherapy and balloon angioplasty groups (0%, 20%, and 26%, p = 0.003 and <0.001, respectively). At 6 months, death occurred in 0% of the DES group, 2% of the intravascular brachytherapy group, and 5% of the balloon angioplasty group (p = 0.36 and <0.18, respectively). Target lesion revascularization/major adverse cardiac events were similar in the intravascular brachytherapy and DES groups (12% and 3%, p = 0.13) and significantly decreased compared with patients who were treated with balloon angioplasty alone (55%, p <0.001 for the 2 comparisons). The results of this retrospective analysis suggest that DES implantation is at least as effective and safe as intravascular brachytherapy for the treatment of SVG ISR and that these treatment modalities are superior to balloon angioplasty alone.     

Intravascular brachytherapy versus drug-eluting stents for the treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent restenosis

Drug-eluting stents (DESs), although promising technology, still are associated with restenosis; therefore, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of intravascular radiation therapy for the treatment of DES in-stent restenosis (ISR). Treatment of DES ISR has not been established, although intravascular radiation therapy is an effective treatment for patients with ISR of bare metal stents. Other modalities are conventional percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including restenting with DES. Radiation for Eluting Stents in Coronary FailUrE (RESCUE) is an international, Internet-based registry of 61 patients who presented with ISR of a DES and were assigned to intravascular radiation therapy with commercially available systems after PCI. Outcomes of these patients were compared with those of a consecutive series of 50 patients who presented with ISR of a DES and were assigned to repeat DES (r-DES) treatment. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups, except for more Cypher stents as the initial DES that restenosed in the r-DES group than in the intravascular radiation therapy group (88.5% vs 69%, p = 0.01). At 8 months there were fewer overall major adverse cardiac events in the intravascular radiation therapy group compared with the r-DES group (9.8% vs 24%, p = 0.044). The need for target vessel and target lesion revascularizations was similar in the 2 groups at 8 months. There has been no report of subacute thrombosis in either group. In conclusion, intravascular radiation therapy as adjunct therapy to PCI for patients presenting with ISR of a DES is safe and should be considered an alternative therapeutic option for this difficult subset of patients.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents for the prevention of restenosis in a worst-case scenario of diffuse and recurrent in-stent restenosis.

For recurrent in-stent restenosis (ISR), surgical revascularization or brachytherapy is still the principal therapeutic options. The present investigation explores the efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting stent to prevent restenosis in these lesions with a high risk of recurrence. In 22 consecutive patients with a recurrent and diffuse ISR, a sirolimus-eluting stent was implanted to cover the restenotic lesion. All patients were followed clinically for at least 1 year and underwent a repeat angiography after 7 months. A quantitative coronary angiographic analysis was done. The target vessel failure was 14% in the sirolimus-eluting stent group, with an angiographic late loss of only 0.39 +/- 0.54. No subacute stent thrombosis was observed, and the 1-year event-free survival was 86%. The three cases with restenosis were all focal and could be successfully treated by additional drug-eluting stent implantation. This study showed the efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting stent for the prevention of restenosis in a worst-case scenario of recurrent and diffuse ISR. The observed restenosis rate is lower than that reported after brachytherapy and suggests that sirolimus-eluting stents are a promising treatment option for ISR.     

Five-year clinical follow up after intracoronary radiation for the prevention of in-stent restenosis

Intracoronary radiation therapy (IRT), utilizing both gamma- and beta-emitting radiation sources, is considered to be a safe and effective treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR). Although no longer in clinical use, a significant number of patients were treated in the past with IRT, and their long-term outcomes have not been well documented. The aim of the present analysis was to document the long-term outcomes of all patients who underwent IRT at our institution for the prevention of recurrence of ISR. Data were collected from 132 patients (148 irradiated lesions) treated with IRT at our institution between March 1999 and January 2004. Clinical and angiographic data were collected over a 5-year period. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with failed IRT (n = 65), defined as a procedure that resulted in a major adverse cardiac event: death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization or coronary artery bypass graft surgery at any time during the follow-up period, and patients with successful IRT (n = 67). Both groups were identical regarding baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, with the exception of a higher percentage of multivessel disease and diffuse restenosis in patients who failed IRT (p = 0.01). At 1-year follow up, slightly less than half (43%) of those patients in the failure group experienced a major adverse cardiac event. During the long-term follow up period, half of all patients who underwent IRT at our institution experienced a major adverse cardiac event, 61 patients (46%) either died or underwent a revascularization procedure, 16 patients (24%) had a myocardial infarction or died, and 55 patients (42%) required repeat coronary revascularization. The average time to develop a major adverse cardiac event was 14.6 +/- 15 months. Therefore, during long-term follow up following IRT for the prevention of ISR, half of all patients developed a major cardiovascular event, mainly due to the need for repeat revascularization procedures.     

The effect of intracoronary radiation for the treatment of recurrent in-stent restenosis in patients with diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of intracoronary radiation therapy (IRT) in diabetic patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients are at an increased risk for restenosis, repeat revascularization procedures and late mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions and stenting. Intracoronary radiation therapy, utilizing both gamma and beta-emitters, has been shown to reduce the rate of ISR. METHODS: The study group consisted of 749 consecutive patients with ISR who were treated with either IRT or placebo in randomized trials and registries at our center. Diabetic patients (252 radiation and 51 placebo) were compared with nondiabetic patients (371 radiation and 75 placebo). RESULTS: In-hospital outcomes were similar between diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with and without radiation. At six-month clinical and angiographic follow-up, there was a significant reduction in the binary restenosis (63.8% vs. 15.7%, p < 0.0001), target lesion revascularization (66.7% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.0001) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (70.6% vs. 22.9%, p < 0.0001) rates in diabetic patients treated with radiation compared to placebo. Comparisons between the placebo arms detected a trend towards higher restenosis (63.8% vs. 48.4% p = 0.13) and TVR (70.6% vs. 56.0%, p = 0.14) in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients. In contrast, diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with IRT experienced similar restenosis (15.6% vs. 10.7% p = 0.33) and TVR (22.9% vs. 28.2% p = 0.41) rates. CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients with ISR, intracoronary radiation significantly reduced the recurrence of ISR compared to placebo. Additionally, similar rates of restenosis and revascularization procedures were achieved in irradiated diabetic and nondiabetic patients. In view of these results, IRT should be considered as a valuable therapeutic alternative in all diabetic patients with ISR.     

Correlates of clinical restenosis following intracoronary implantation of drug-eluting stents

Despite significant decreases in restenosis and repeated intervention achieved using drug-eluting stents (DESs), the benefit has not been homogenous across all patient and lesion subsets. Identification of correlates of DES restenosis may allow a differing management approach and lead to improved patient outcomes. The study population consisted of 3,535 consecutive patients (5,046 lesions) who underwent successful sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation for >or=1 native coronary artery or bypass graft lesion from April 2003 to September 2006. From this cohort, 197 patients (237 lesions) were identified to have in-stent restenosis (ISR) requiring revascularization within 12 months of stent implantation. This group was compared with the remainder of the patient population. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of DES ISR. Independent correlates of DES ISR using multivariate analysis included both clinical and procedural factors. Clinical predictors were age, hypertension, and unstable angina. Procedural predictors were left anterior descending artery intervention, number of stents implanted, stented length/lesion, and lack of intravascular ultrasound guidance. Implantation of >or=3 stents was associated with a significantly higher restenosis risk (9.7% vs 5.1%; p=0.0003). A 10-mm increase in stented length was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.18 (95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.35). Diabetes, stent diameter, and stent type were found not to be predictive of DES ISR. In conclusion, correlates of DES ISR included both clinical and procedural factors. Limiting the number of stents and stented length, in addition to intravascular ultrasound guidance, may minimize DES ISR.     

Treatment of in-stent restenosis with sirolimus-eluting-stents -- a six month clinical and angiographic follow-up

Summary Treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a therapeutic challenge since many pharmacological and mechanical approaches have shown disappointing results except for brachytherapy. Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been reported to effectively reduce ISR in de novo lesions. We studied 55 consecutive patients with ISR in native coronary arteries and 7 with ISR in saphenous vein grafts (SVG) with elective indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), who underwent successful implantation with DES. No in-hospital postprocedural major adverse cardiac events were observed. All but one patient (n=61) underwent an angiographic follow-up at 183±30 days. Grade of stenosis was assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at index procedure and at control angiography. Restenosis (>50%) occurred in 5 patients (8.2%). Target vessel revascularization was performed in an additional 4 patients. Minimal intimal hyperplasia was observed in all segments covered by DES (late loss 0.08±0.37 mm, loss index 0.11±0.47). One patient suffered from subacute stent thrombosis due to discontinuation of clopidogrel medication. At six month follow-up two patients had died. Death was not related to a restenosis in the treated segment. Conclusion Our experiences with DES treatment of ISR lesions show good angiographic and clinical results at index procedure and at the 6 month follow-up with low sub acute thrombosis rate as compared with existing treatment modalities. Restenosis rate seems to be at least as low as reported for brachytherapy.      

Angiographic and intravascular ultrasound findings of the late catch-up phenomenon after intracoronary beta-radiation for the treatment of in-stent restenosis

We report one-year angiographic and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) outcomes of in-stent restenosis (ISR) patients treated with intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT). The benefit of IVBT for treating ISR is well documented. However, few data exist on significant angiographic and intravascular ultrasonic in-stent lumen deterioration beyond the habitual 6-month analysis after the index radiation procedure or so-called late catch-up process in the treatment of ISR. Twenty-five consecutive patients with ISR were treated with IVBT using the Beta-Cath System (a 40 mm 90 Sr per 90 gamma source). Quantitative angiographic and IVUS analysis was performed in all of them at 6 and 12 months. IVBT was successful in all patients. Four patients (16%) developed recurrent angiographic binary restenosis at 6-month follow-up, all located within the adjacent reference segments, with 2 being associated with geographical miss. An additional 4 patients (16%) presented with recurrent ISR at 12-month follow-up, all within the stented segment. Significant in-stent lumen loss (0.16 +/- 0.42 mm to 0.34 +/- 0.46 mm; p = 0.008) and in-stent intimal hyperplasia growth (+11.2 +/- 0.48 mm3; p = 0.03) was observed between 6 and 12 months. Intracoronary beta-radiation for the treatment of ISR was associated with significant luminal deterioration (late catch-up) within the stents between 6 and 12 months due to an important late progression of in-stent intimal hyperplasia.     

Classification and Current Treatment Options of In-Stent Restenosis

Coronary stent implantation is currently performed in > 80% of percutaneous coronary interventions. Its main late complication is the development of in-stent restenosis (ISR), occurring in 10-80% of lesions treated in daily practice. The classification by Mehran et al. is most commonly used. Current therapeutic options to treat ISR include repeat balloon angioplasty, repeat stenting, cutting balloon angioplasty, directional coronary atherectomy, rotational coronary atherectomy, brachytherapy, and drug-eluting stents (DES). DES have been effective in reducing binary restenosis in de novo lesions in randomized controlled trials. The novel use of DES to treat ISR has been shown to be safe and effective in multiple studies involving sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. As DES implantation becomes more widespread, ISR in DES is emerging as a new problem. The use of debulking techniques to treat ISR in DES is to be cautioned against. In this new era, the optimal treatment of this new problem is currently unknown. We await further data to see whether repeat DES implantation may help solve this vexing clinical problem.     

Comparison between sirolimus-eluting stents and intracoronary catheter-based beta radiation for the treatment of in-stent restenosis

We report the outcomes of patients who had in-stent restenosis (IRS) that was treated with intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT) or sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation. The benefit of IVBT for treating ISR is well documented. SES implantation decreases first-time ISR and, in preliminary reports, has been used to treat ISR. Fifty consecutive patients who had ISR were treated; the first 25 patients underwent SES implantation and the next 25 patients were treated with IVBT using a beta-Cath System (a 40-mm strontium-90/yttrium-90 source). Quantitative angiographic and intravascular ultrasound follow-up were performed at 5.2 +/- 1.1 and 12.1 +/- 1.2 months; clinical follow-up was performed at 15 months. SES deployment and IVBT were successful in all patients. At 12-month follow-up, 8 patients who underwent IVBT had angiographic recurrence (4 in the stent and 4 at the stent edge); only 1 patient who underwent SES implantation developed recurrent ISR. At 12 months, in-stent late luminal loss was similar between the SES and IVBT groups (0.35 +/- 0.45 vs 0.34 +/- 0.46 mm, p = 0.9); however, in-stent net luminal gain was higher in the SES group than in the IVBT group (1.32 +/- 0.13 vs 0.57 +/- 0.19 mm, p <0.0001), and in-lesion late luminal loss was higher in the IVBT group (0.48 +/- 0.32 vs 0.16 +/- 0.42 mm, p = 0.004). At 12 months, intravascular ultrasound stent volume obstruction was higher after IVBT versus than after SES implantation (38.7% vs 6.7%, p <0.0001). At 15-month clinical follow-up, 64% and 96% (p <0.01) of patients who underwent IVBT and SES implantation, respectively, were free of major adverse cardiac events. In conclusion SES implantation for the treatment of ISR was effective and superior to catheter-based IVBT in preventing recurrent neointimal proliferation and angiographic restenosis at 1-year follow-up.     

Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: A clinical review

Treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains problematic despite the widespread application of drug-eluting stents (DES). Challenging lesion cohorts such as diffuse ISR and restenosis after failed intracoronary radiation therapy (IRT) maybe best treated with DES. The overall benefit of DES appears inferior to their utility in treating de novo coronary lesions. Randomised trials comparing DES and IRT will soon be available to determine the optimal therapy for ISR. The challenge to treat ISR in the DES era is the next frontier of interventional cardiology.     

Long-term outcomes after management of restenosis or thrombosis of drug-eluting stents.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of patients who developed coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) or stent thrombosis (STH) inside drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents have markedly reduced the incidence of restenosis. However, when restenosis occurs within a DES, its optimal management remains unclear. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical and angiographic data from 92 patients who underwent revascularization for ISR (n = 84) or STH (n = 8) within a DES at our institution. Regular follow-ups were available up to 2 years. We recorded the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as deaths from all causes, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR), among patients treated by the "DES sandwich" technique or by other treatment methods. RESULTS: In-hospital MACE included 1 periprocedural MI and 2 deaths. Over a mean follow-up of 15 +/- 6 months, the overall rates of death, MI, and TLR were 8.7%, 2.2%, and 30.6%, respectively. By actuarial analysis, the 12-month TLR and MACE rates were 28.2% and 42.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current treatments of ISR or STH in DES are associated with a high long-term rate of MACE.     

The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with in-stent restenosis who failed intracoronary radiation therapy

OBJECTIVES: This study reports the outcome of patients who failed intracoronary radiation therapy (IRT) for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: Intracoronary radiation therapy has demonstrated a reduction in the recurrence rate of restenosis for patients with ISR. However, 10% to 30% of these patients require repeat intervention to the irradiated site. METHODS: Of 961 patients who were assigned to gamma or beta radiation for the treatment of diffuse ISR, we evaluated the outcome of 282 (29%) consecutive patients who failed IRT and compared them with the 679 (71%) patients who had successful IRT. For patients who failed radiation, the mean time to the first target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 173 +/- 127 days after the index procedure and the total duration of follow-up was 494 +/- 304 days. RESULTS: Patients who failed IRT were younger (60 +/- 10 vs. 63 +/- 11 years, p = 0.002) and had a higher incidence of restenting (51% vs. 41%, p = 0.003). The majority (55%) of the restenotic lesions after IRT failure were focal (< or =10 mm), with a mean lesion length of 11.9 +/- 1.9 mm. Of the 257 patients who had subsequent TVR after failed IRT, 68 (26%) underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and 189 (74%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention using balloon in 61%, restenting in 26%, atheroablation in 11%, and the cutting balloon in 2% of cases. At six months, 6% of patients died, 1% had Q-wave MI, 17% had repeat TVR, and the overall rate of major adverse cardiac events was 21%. CONCLUSIONS: The predominant angiographic pattern of lesions in patients who failed IRT is focal restenosis, with these lesions responding well to conventional revascularization methods.     

Elderly patients have a favorable outcome after intracoronary radiation for in-stent restenosis.

Intracoronary radiation therapy (IRT) reduces recurrent in-stent restenosis (ISR) by inhibition of smooth muscle cell proliferation. The ability of these cells to replicate is limited with age due to changes in the telomeres. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of age on outcomes following IRT for ISR. We evaluated 1,088 patients with 6-month clinical follow-up who were enrolled in radiation trials for ISR using gamma- and beta-emitters. Patients were analyzed within and between IRT (n = 861) or placebo therapy (n = 227) in four age groups (< 55, 55-65, 66-75, > 75 years). Baseline characteristics were similar within each age group of IRT patients, except elderly patients (> 75 years) had a lower rate of diabetes (28% in patients > 75 years; P = 0.008) and a higher rate of previous CABG (59% in patients > 75 years; P < 0.001). The rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was reduced in the elderly. TLR at 6 months was 18% in patients < 55 years, 21% in 55-65 years, 12% in 66-75 years, and 10% in patients > 75 (P = 0.009). The MACE rate at 6 months was 21% in patients < 55 years, 29% in 55-65 years, 26% in 66-75 years, and 17% in patients > 75 (P = 0.03). No effect of age was seen in placebo patients. IRT-treated patients had reduced MACE compared to placebo in all age groups, driven by reduced target vessel revascularization. Age was an independent predictor of MACE at 6 months (OR = 0.8; CI = 0.70-0.93; P = 0.004). Angiographic restenosis was not clearly associated with need for TLR in patients > 75 years. In elderly patients (> 75 years) treated with IRT for ISR, the rate of TLR was significantly reduced compared to younger patients. However, this reduction in TLR was not associated with a reduction in angiographic restenosis, suggesting that TLR should not be used as a surrogate for angiographic evaluation.     

Drug-eluting stent-supported percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total coronary occlusion.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the clinical and angiographic outcomes after drug-eluting stent (DES)-supported percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO). BACKGROUND: There are few data about the efficacy of DES-supported PCI for CTO. METHODS: All consecutive patients who had a sirolimus-eluting stent or a paclitaxel-eluting stent implanted for CTO from December 2003 to December 2004 were analyzed. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with DES were compared with a case-matched control group of patients treated with bare metal stents (BMS) in the 12 months before the routine use of DES. RESULTS: Successful DES-supported PCI was performed in 92 patients and 104 CTO. The case-matched control group consisted of 26 patients and 27 CTO successfully treated with BMS. There were no differences between groups in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. Stent length in the DES group was higher as compared with that of BMS group (51+/-28 mm vs. 40+/-19 mm, P=0.073). The 6-month major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was lower in the DES group as compared with that of BMS group (9.8% vs. 23%, P=0.072). The angiographic follow-rate was 80% in the DES group and 81% in the BMS group. The 6-month restenosis rate was 19% in the DES group and 45% in the BMS group (P<0.001). By multivariate analysis, it was found that in the DES group, the only predictors of restenosis were stented segment length (OR 1.031, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, P=0.009) and a target vessel reference diameter<2.5 mm (OR 6.48, 95% CI 1.51-27.83, P=0.012), while the only predictor of MACE was stent length (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08, P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: DES implantation for CTO decreases the risk of mid-term restenosis and MACE. Small vessels and diffuse disease requiring the implantation of multiple stents and very long stents for full coverage of the target lesion are still associated with a relatively high risk of restenosis.     

冠状动脉介入治疗后造影复查支架再狭窄结果分析

目的:分析不同类型支架置入术后冠状动脉(冠脉)造影复查的影像学特点.方法:入选行冠脉介入治疗后进行造影复查的577例患者的846处病变,根据置入支架类型及方式不同分别分析其临床资料及冠脉造影资料.结果:冠脉造影随访率为22.62%;药物支架虽然病变更复杂,但其冠脉造影复查再狭窄率明显低于裸支架(20.29%VS 42.56%,P=0.000);裸支架重叠、药物支架重叠、裸支架与药物支架重叠时再狭窄率分别为53.49%,25.55%,35.29%.药物支架在支架内弥漫性、支架内弥漫性累及两端及支架内局限性再狭窄率明显低于裸支架,差异均有统计学意义(P=0.001,P=0.013,P=0.031),药物支架支架近端局限性再狭窄率高于裸支架,差异有统计学意义(P=0.000);不同药物支架冠脉造影复查再狭窄率没有统计学差异(P=0.193);药物支架和裸支架在糖尿病患者中冠脉造影复查再狭窄率为23.85%和42.65%(P=0.012).结论:①长病变需要重叠支架时尽量使用药物支架重叠;②药物支架改变了支架再狭窄类型,由弥漫型再狭窄转为局限型;③不同种类药物支架效果良好;④药物支架对糖尿病患者同样有效.     

Covered stent for the treatment of recurrent bilateral renal artery in-stent restenosis

The optimal treatment for renal artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) is not well established. Reintervention with different strategies including balloon angioplasty, cutting-balloon angioplasty, additional stenting with bare-metal, drug-eluting or covered stents and brachytherapy are effective in achieving immediate angiographic success. However, recurrent ISR rates are high irrespective of treatment strategy. We present a case describing the use of a covered stent for the treatment of recurrent bilateral renal artery ISR after bare-metal and drug-eluting stent implantation and cutting-balloon angioplasty.     

Comparison of six-month angiographic and three-year outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation versus brachytherapy for bare metal in-stent restenosis

To evaluate long-term effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for diffuse bare metal in-stent restenosis (ISR), we compared 6-month angiographic and long-term (3-year) clinical outcomes of SES implantation and intracoronary brachytherapy (ICBT). SES implantation for diffuse ISR was performed in 120 consecutive patients and their results were compared with those from 240 patients treated with beta-radiation with balloons filled with rhenium-188 and mercaptoacetyltriglycine. The radiation dose was 15 or 18 Gy at a depth of 1.0 mm into the vessel wall. The primary end point was 3-year major adverse cardiac events including myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and target lesion revascularization. The 2 groups were similar in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. Lesion lengths were 25.1 +/- 14.2 mm in the SES group and 24.5 +/- 10.4 mm in the ICBT group (p = 0.15). In-stent acute gain was greater in the SES group than in the ICBT group (2.23 +/- 0.62 vs 1.91 +/- 0.54 mm, p <0.001). We obtained 6-month angiographic follow-up in 287 patients (79.7%). In-segment angiographic restenoses were 7.4% (7 of 94) in the SES group and 26.4% (51 of 193) in the ICBT group (p <0.05). Two myocardial infarctions (1 in each group) and 5 deaths (4 in SES group, 1 in ICBT group) occurred during 3-year follow-up. At 3 years, survival rates without target lesion revascularization (94.1 +/- 2.2% vs 84.6 +/- 2.3%, p = 0.011) and major adverse cardiac events (92.5 +/- 2.4% vs 84.2 +/- 2.4%, respectively, p = 0.03) were higher in the SES than in the ICBT group. In conclusion, compared with ICBT, SES implantation for diffuse ISR is more effective in decreasing recurrent restenosis and improving long-term outcomes.     

Results and predictors of angiographic restenosis and long-term adverse cardiac events after drug-eluting stent implantation for aorto-ostial coronary artery disease

The correlates of angiographic and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for aorto-ostial lesions remain unknown. This study evaluated long-term results of DES implantation for aorto-ostial lesions and determined risk factors for restenosis and adverse cardiac events. In total, 184 consecutive patients who underwent DES implantation for aorto-ostial lesions were investigated (DES group) compared with 172 consecutive patients treated with bare metal stents before the introduction of DESs (pre-DES group). Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were defined as death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, and need for target lesion revascularization. The DES group had significantly higher risk clinical and procedural profiles than the pre-DES group. Procedural success rates were 99.5% in the DES group and 100% in the pre-DES group (p = 1.0). The DES group had a significantly lower incidence of in-segment restenosis (10.5% vs 26.0%, p = 0.001) and target lesion revascularization (4.3% vs 11.6%, p = 0.011). Cumulative MACE rates at 1 year were 6.5% in the DES group and 13.4% in the pre-DES group (p = 0.03). By multivariate analysis, treatment of bypass graft, treatment of in-stent restenosis, and reference vessel diameter were predictors of restenosis, and only reference vessel diameter (hazard ratio 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.75, p = 0.017) inversely correlated with 1-year MACEs after DES implantation. In conclusion, DES implantation for aorto-ostial lesions is associated with a significant decrease in restenosis and MACEs compared with the pre-DES phase. Treatment of bypass graft and in-stent restenosis and reference vessel size were identified as predictors of restenosis and/or long-term MACEs after DES implantation.