Percutaneous coronary intervention of lesions with in-stent restenosis: A report from the ADAPT-DES study

Prognostic impact of in-stent restenosis in normal weight, overweight, and obese patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in-stent restenosis (ISR) is related with a worse prognosis, while higher body mass index (BMI) values are associated with better outcomes. It is unclear whether the prognostic impact of ISR varies in function of BMI.

METHODS

Patients undergoing PCI at a large center from 2012 to 2019 not presenting with an acute myocardial infarction (MI) were included. Subjects with BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 or treated with bare metal stents were excluded. Patients were stratified according to type of lesion treated (ISR vs. no-ISR) and into four BMI categories: normal weight (BMI 18.5-25 kg/m2 ), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2 ), class I obesity (30.0-34.9 kg/m2 ), class II-III obesity (≥35.0 kg/m2 ). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year.

RESULTS

Out of 16,234 patients, 3694 (23%) underwent PCI for ISR. ISR as compared to no-ISR was associated with a consistent increased risk of MACE within the normal weight (18.8% vs. 7.8%, adj. hazard ratio (HR): 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51-2.64), overweight (19.1% vs. 6.4%, adj. HR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.91-2.88), class I obesity (18.3% vs. 6.8%, adj. HR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.47-2.57), and class II-III obesity (16.4% vs. 7.4%, adj. HR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.09-2.37) groups (interaction p-value: 0.192). The ISR-related risks were mostly driven by an excess of TVR.

CONCLUSIONS

At 1 year, ISR was associated with an increased risk of MACE irrespective of BMI, mostly due to an excess of TVR after ISR.

Waksman In-Stent Restenosis Classification: A mechanism-based approach to the treatment of restenosis

Despite contemporary advances in stent technology, in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a common issue following percutaneous coronary intervention. A novel classification system based on underlying mechanism of action of restenosis was recently introduced. The Waksman In-Stent Restenosis Classification characterizes different patterns of ISR to best delineate the type of restenosis and help guide treatment. Intravascular imaging with either intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography allows for real-time evaluation of ISR. We herein provide an illustrative review of the Waksman In-Stent Restenosis Classification.

Drug-eluting stent thrombosis: current and future perspectives

Over the past 40 years, the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention has dramatically improved by overcoming several challenges. The introduction of drug-eluting stent (DES) in particular was a major breakthrough in interventional cardiology. Compared to bare-metal stents, first-generation DES (G1-DES) has dramatically reduced the rates of in-stent restenosis and subsequent target lesion revascularization. However, major safety concerns surrounding stent thrombosis (ST) emerged with G1-DES in clinical practice as a result of the high incidences of death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization associated with ST. To overcome these limitations, second-generation DES (G2-DES) has been developed with an improved stent platform with thinner strut and biocompatible durable or biodegradable polymers. Indeed, G2-DES, when compared with G1-DES, has improved clinical outcomes by reducing the risk of late thrombotic events while maintaining anti-restenotic efficacy, whereas ST still occurs, even with the use of G2-DES. This review gives an overview of pathophysiology, risk factors, and outcomes of ST after DES implantation. Additionally, we discuss the management and prevention of ST.

Adjunctive Cilostazol to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy to Enhance Mobilization of Endothelial Progenitor Cell in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled EPISODE Trial

Background: Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) have the potential to protect against atherothrombotic event occurrences. There are no data to evaluate the impact of cilostazol on EPC levels in high-risk patients. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effect of adjunctive cilostazol on EPC mobilization and platelet reactivity in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Before discharge, patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned to receive cilostazol SR capsule (200-mg) a day (n = 30) or placebo (n = 30) on top of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin. Before randomization (baseline) and at 30-day follow-up, circulating EPC levels were analyzed using flow cytometry and hemostatic measurements were evaluated by VerifyNow and thromboelastography assays. The primary endpoint was the relative change in EPC levels between baseline and 30-day. Results: At baseline, there were similar levels of EPC counts between treatments, whereas patients with cilostazol showed higher levels of EPC counts compared with placebo after 30 days. Cilostazol versus placebo treatment displayed significantly higher changes in EPC levels between baseline and follow-up (ΔCD133⁺/KDR⁺: difference 216%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 44~388%, p = 0.015; ΔCD34⁺/KDR⁺: difference 183%, 95% CI 25~342%, p = 0.024). At 30-day follow-up, platelet reactivity was lower in the cilostazol group compared with the placebo group (130 ± 45 versus 169 ± 62 P2Y12 Reaction Unit, p = 0.009). However, there were no significant correlations between the changes of EPC levels and platelet reactivity. Conclusion: Adjunctive cilostazol on top of clopidogrel and aspirin versus DAPT alone is associated with increased EPC mobilization and decreased platelet reactivity in AMI patients, suggesting its pleiotropic effects against atherothrombotic events (NCT04407312).

Intravascular ultrasound guidance improves patient survival (mortality) after drug-eluting stent implantation: review and updated bibliography

Individual studies IVUS vs angiography-guided DES implantation studies, whether randomized clinical trials or registries are underpowered, to show a reduction in mortality, especially at 1 year of follow-up. However, either meta-analyses or the few studies with long-term (> 5 year) follow-up showed that IVUS guidance reduced mortality and improved patient survival, even with second-generation DES.

Risk Factors and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Thrombosis

Background:

The risk factors and long-term clinical outcomes of patients with definite stent thrombosis (ST) after second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation have not yet been adequately assessed.

Methods and Results:

The REAL-ST (Retrospective Multicenter Registry of ST After First- and Second-Generation DES Implantation) included 313 definite ST of second-generation DES (early ST, n=179; late ST, n=66; very late ST, n=68). Four patients without definite ST of second-generation DES were identified as control patients for each ST case. Risk factors of definite ST were mostly different according to the timing of ST: ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, and unstable angina at presentation, current smoking, left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, stent overlap, severely calcified lesion, left main coronary artery lesion, proximal left anterior descending lesion, postdiameter stenosis ≥20%, for early ST; age <70 years, ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction at presentation, hemodialysis, left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, in-stent restenosis, and severely calcified lesion for late ST; and proximal left anterior descending lesion and in-stent restenosis for very late ST. Cumulative 4-year incidence of death after the index ST events was significantly higher in the ST patients than control patients (33.0% versus 12.3%, P <0.001 for early ST versus control; 30.6% versus 14.2%, P <0.001 for late ST versus control; and 28.0% versus 13.0%, P <0.001 for very late ST versus control, respectively).

Conclusions:

Risk factors of definite ST after second-generation DES implantation were mostly different according to the timing of ST. Definite ST patients showed unfavorable long-term clinical outcomes compared with those without definite ST.

Clinical Trial Registration:

URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp . Unique identifier: UMIN000025181.