Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting stents or drug eluting balloon for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: 1-Year follow-up of a propensity score matching comparison (the BIORESOLVE-ISR Study)

Long-term outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffolds

INTRODUCTION

The higher scaffold thrombosis rates observed with the first-generation bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) compared to conventional drug-eluting stents were likely due in part to bioresorbable polymers having insufficient radial strength, necessitating larger strut profiles. Meta-analysis of the long-term outcomes from the first-generation Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) showed that this period of excess risk ended at 3 years. Therefore, current attention has been focused on improving early outcomes by increasing the scaffold's tensile strength and reducing strut thickness.

AREAS COVERED

This review summaries the lessons learned from the first-generation BRS. It updates the long-term clinical outcomes of trials evaluating the ABSORB BVS and metallic alloy-based BRS. In addition, it reviews the next-generation BRSs manufactured in Asia.

EXPERT OPINION

Critical areas to improve the performance and safety of biodegradable scaffolds include further development in material science, surface modification, delivery systems, and long-term follow-up studies.

Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis: Modern Approach to a Classic Challenge

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is a recognized complication following percutaneous coronary intervention in which the luminal diameter is narrowed through neointimal hyperplasia and vessel remodeling. Although rates of ISR have decreased in most recent years owing to newer generation drug-eluting stents, thinner struts, and better intravascular imaging modalities, ISR remains a prevalent dilemma that proves to be challenging to manage. Several factors have been proposed to contribute to ISR formation, including mechanical stent characteristics, technical factors during the coronary intervention, and biological aspects of drug-eluting stents. Presentation of ISR can range from asymptomatic to late myocardial infarction and could be difficult to differentiate from acute thrombus formation. No definite guidelines are present on the management of ISR. In this review, we will discuss the mechanisms underlying ISR and provide insight into patient-related and procedural risk factors contributing to ISR, in addition to highlighting common treatment approaches utilized in the management of ISR.

Intravascular imaging in coronary stent restenosis: Prevention, characterization, and management

Despite the introduction of drug-eluting stents to combat the neointimal hyperplasia that occurred after BMS implantation, in-stent restenosis is still encountered in a significant number of patients, particularly as increasingly complex lesions are tackled by percutaneous coronary intervention. Many biological and mechanical factors interplay to produce restenosis, some of which are avoidable. Intravascular imaging provided unique insights into various forms of stent-related mechanical issues that contribute to this phenomenon. From a practical perspective, intravascular imaging can therefore help to optimize the stenting procedure to avert these issues. Moreover, once the problem of restenosis eventuates, imaging can guide the management by tackling the underlying identified mechanism. Finally, it can be used to evaluate the re-intervention results. Nevertheless, with the emergence of different treatment options, more evidence is needed to define patient/lesion-specific characteristics that may help to tailor treatment selection in a way that improves clinical outcomes.

Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty vs. Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis in the Routine Clinical Practice: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction: In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenging issue despite the great advance of drug-eluting stents (DES). In addition, the consensus was lacking regarding the optimal strategy for DES-ISR. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate angiographic and clinical outcomes of the two most effective treatments DES vs. drug-eluting balloon (DCB) for patients with DES-ISR. Methods: This meta-analysis used the data from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were identified by a systematic search in the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was regarded as the primary endpoint. In addition, the late angiographic outcomes and other clinical outcomes, namely, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events, were also included for analysis. Results: Five RCTs with about 1,193 patients were included in this meta-analysis for the analysis. For the primary endpoint, the overall pooled outcomes suggested repeat DES implantation was associated with a significant reduction in the term of TLR compared with DCB angioplasty (risk ratio = 1.53, 95% CI 1.15-2.04, p = 0.003). But no significant difference in angiographic outcomes and other clinical endpoints were observed between DES and DCB. In the subgroup analysis, DCB was inferior to new-generation DES (NG-DES)/everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in the term of TLR. In addition, this non-significant trend was also noted in the subgroup of the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) vs. DCB. For the angiographic endpoints, EES, not PES, was associated with larger minimum lumen diameter [mean difference (MD) = -0.25, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.11, p = 0.0003], lower percent diameter stenosis (MD = 7.29%, 95% CI 2.86-11.71%, p = 0.001), and less binary restenosis (OR = 2.20, 95% CI 1.18-4.11, p = 0.01). But NG-DES/EES was comparable to DCB in cardiac death, MI, and stent thrombosis. Conclusions: For the patients with DES-ISR, treatment with DES, especially NG-DES/EES could reduce the risk of TLR significantly compared to DCB at long-term follow-up.

Impact of anemia on in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention

Background

Anemia is a common risk factor for post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) adverse events; however, data on its association with in-stent restenosis (ISR) is limited.

Methods

538 patients who underwent PCI between January 2017 and September 2019 and follow-up angiography 9–12 months after the initial PCI were enrolled in this study. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were compared between the ISR and non-ISR groups, and independent predictors of ISR were determined using propensity score matching.

Results

The incidence of anemia was 53.5% in patients with ISR and 19.0% in those without ISR. Univariable logistic regression analyses showed that anemia (OR, 4.283; 95% CI, 1.949–9.410; P < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (OR, 2.588; 95% CI, 1.176–5.696; P = 0.018), chronic kidney disease (OR, 3.058; 95% CI, 1.289–7.252; P = 0.011), multiple stenting (OR, 2.592; 95% CI, 1.205–5.573; P = 0.015), bifurcation lesion (OR, 2.669; 95% CI, 1.236–5.763; P = 0.012), and calcification (OR, 3.529; 95% CI, 1.131–11.014; P = 0.030) were closely associated with ISR. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) levels and stent diameter were also significantly linked to ISR, as was anemia (P = 0.009) after propensity score matching.

Conclusion

Anemia is closely associated with post-PCI ISR, and patients with lower hemoglobin levels are at a higher risk of ISR.

Restenosis of Drug-Eluting Stents

Despite on-going evolution and iteration of drug-eluting stent (DES) technology, the prevalence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains relatively unchanged, encompassing ≈10% of percutaneous coronary interventions. The mechanism of ISR is multifactorial, including biological, mechanical, patient, and operator-related factors. The main mechanical contributors are stent underexpansion or fracture, while biological factors include local inflammation leading to aggressive neointimal proliferation and late neoatherosclerosis. Intracoronary imaging is critical to identify the mechanism of ISR and tailor therapy accordingly. The presentation of DES-ISR is not benign and is challenging for optimal treatment. Among the proposed treatment modalities are scoring and high-pressure balloons, percutaneous coronary intervention with additional DES, atheroablative therapies by laser or mechanical atherectomy, drug-coated balloons, vascular brachytherapy, and surgical revascularization. We propose a new classification for ISR that differentiates among mechanical, biological, and mixed etiologies. Stratifying ISR by mechanism guides individualized treatment of DES-ISR to improve clinical outcomes. An algorithmic approach, guided by intracoronary imaging, for the treatment of DES-ISR, is recommended based on the specific cause of restenosis.