Diabetes and restenosis

Restenosis, defined as the re-narrowing of an arterial lumen after revascularization, represents an increasingly important issue in clinical practice. Indeed, as the number of stent placements has risen to an estimate that exceeds 3 million annually worldwide, revascularization procedures have become much more common. Several investigators have demonstrated that vessels in patients with diabetes mellitus have an increased risk restenosis. Here we present a systematic overview of the effects of diabetes on in-stent restenosis. Current classification and updated epidemiology of restenosis are discussed, alongside the main mechanisms underlying the pathophysiology of this event. Then, we summarize the clinical presentation of restenosis, emphasizing the importance of glycemic control in diabetic patients. Indeed, in diabetic patients who underwent revascularization procedures a proper glycemic control remains imperative.

Efficacy of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents in Treating Diabetic Coronary Lesions: An Optical Coherence Tomography Study

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) plays an important role in restenosis and late in-stent thrombosis (ST). The current study using optical coherence tomography (OCT) aims to compare target lesion neointima in patients with or without diabetes after zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) treatment.

METHODS

OCT images of 90,212 struts and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in 62 patients (32 with DM and 30 without DM) with 69 de novo coronary lesions (34 DM and 35 non-DM) both after ZES implantation and 12 ± 1 month angiographic follow-up were recorded. Patient characteristics, lesion characteristics, clinical outcomes, and OCT findings including neointimal thickness, coverage, malapposition, and intimal morphology were analyzed.

RESULTS

Baseline patient characteristics and lesion characteristics data were similar between the two groups. Higher neointimal thickness (0.14 ± 0.09 mm vs. 0.09 ± 0.04 mm, p = 0.021), more neovascularization (3.03 ± 6.24 vs. 0.52 ± 1.87, p = 0.017) and higher incidence of layered signal pattern (12.19 ± 19.91% vs. 4.28 ± 9.02%, p = 0.049) were observed in diabetic lesions comparing with non-diabetic lesions. No differences were found in malapposition, uncovered percentage, and thrombus between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Occurrence of clinical adverse events was also similar during the follow-up period (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although more neointimal proliferation and more neovascularization were found in diabetic coronary lesions when compared with non-diabetic lesions, treatment with ZES showed similar stent malapposition rate at 1-year follow-up. The data indicated that ZES treatment could possibly be effective in treating diabetic coronary lesions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01747356.

Long-term clinical safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon in the treatment of in-stent restenosis: A meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

There is a long-term safety issue in peripheral arterial disease patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon, this has also raised concerns on DCB in coronary intervention.

METHODS

Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine observational studies (OSs) were included with a total of 3,782 patients (1,827 in the DCB group, 1,955 in the drug-eluting stent [DES] group) being analyzed. The primary outcome measure-major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD), stent thrombosis (ST), all-cause death (AD), and coronary angiography outcomes included late lumen loss (LLL), minimum luminal diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis (DS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

DCB treatment significantly reduced the LLL (MD: -0.13; [CI -0.23 to -0.03], p = .01). No difference was found for MLD (MD: -0.1; [CI -0.24 to 0.04], p = .17) and DS% (RR = 0.98 [CI 0.80-1.20], p = .86). There was no significant difference in TLR, TVR, MI, CD, ST, AD, and the overall incidence of MACEs between the two groups up to 3 years follow-up. Subgroup analysis for different type of ISR and DES showed no significant difference in the incidence of endpoints, and there is no difference when considering RCTs or OSs only.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy of the DCB and DES in the treatment of ISR is comparable at up to 3 years follow-up.