β-radiation reduces the reactivity of extracellular matrix proteins in intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT), resulting in decreased platelet adhesion

The contemporary use of intracoronary brachytherapy for instent restenosis: A review

In-stent restenosis (ISR) has been a major limitation in interventional cardiology and constitutes nearly 10 % of all percutaneous coronary interventions in the United States. Drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis proves particularly difficult to manage and poses a high risk of recurrence and repeat intervention. Intra-coronary brachytherapy (IBT) has been traditionally viewed as a potential treatment modality for ISR. However, its use was hindered by procedural complexity, cost, and the advent of newer-generation DES. Recent data suggests promising results regarding IBT for the treatment of resistant DES-ISR. This review addresses the mechanism of action of IBT, procedural details, and associated risks and complications of its use. It will also highlight the available clinical evidence supporting the use of IBT and the future directions of its utilization in the treatment of ISR.

Intravascular brachytherapy for peripheral vascular disease

BACKGROUND

Interventional treatment of arteries that are narrowed and obstructed by atherosclerosis involves either bypassing the blockage using a graft; widening the artery from the inside with a balloon, a procedure known as percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA); or providing a strut to hold the vessel open, known as a stent. All of these treatments are, however, limited by the high numbers that fail within a year. Intravascular brachytherapy is the application of radiation directly to the site of vessel narrowing. It is known to inhibit the processes that lead to restenosis (narrowing) of vessels and grafts after treatment. This is an update of a review first published in 2002.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of, and complications associated with, intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT) for maintaining patency after angioplasty or stent insertion in native vessels or bypass grafts of the iliac or infrainguinal arteries.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register (last searched August 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 7).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of the use of brachytherapy as an adjunct to the endovascular treatment of people with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) or stenosed bypass grafts of the iliac or infrainguinal arteries versus the procedure without brachytherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and two other review authors independently extracted the data. Adverse event information was collected from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials with a combined total of 1090 participants were included in this review. All included studies used the femoropopliteal artery. We did not identify any studies that used the iliac arteries. All studies compared PTA with or without stenting plus IVBT versus PTA with or without stenting alone. No trials were found comparing IVBT to technologies such as drug eluting stents or balloons, or cryoplasty. Follow-up ranged from six months to five years. The quality of the included trials was moderate with our concerns relating to the difficulty of blinding due to the nature of the procedures and the small sample sizes for some studies. Primary outcomes (patency or restenosis and need for re-intervention) were reported in the majority of the trials, but reporting at various time points and the use of multiple definitions of the outcomes by the included studies meant that not all data were available for pooling. The secondary outcomes were not reported in many of the included studies.For brachytherapy, cumulative patency was higher at 24 months (odds ratio (OR) 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 4.10, n = 222, P = 0.002). A statistically significant difference was found for restenosis at six months (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.66, n = 562, P = 0.004), 12 months (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.68, n = 375, P = 0.0002) and 24 months (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.78, n = 164, P = 0.007) in favour of IVBT. No difference was found after five years as measured in one study. The need for re-interventions was reported in six studies. Target lesion revascularisation was significantly reduced in trial participants treated with IVBT compared with angioplasty alone (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97, P = 0.04) at six months after the interventions. No statistically significant difference was found between the procedures on the need for re-intervention at 12 and 24 months after the procedures.A statistically significant lower number of occlusions was found in the control group at more than three months (OR 11.46, 95% CI 1.44 to 90.96, n = 363, P = 0.02) but no differences were found at less than one month nor at 12 months after the procedures making the clinical significance uncertain. Ankle brachial index was statistically significantly better for IVBT at the 12 month follow-up (mean difference 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.14, n = 100, P = 0.02) but no statistically significant differences were found at 24 hours and at six months.Quality of life, complications, limb loss, cardiovascular deaths, death from all causes, pain free walking distance and maximum walking distance on a treadmill were similar for the two arms of the trials with no statistically significant difference found between the treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for using peripheral artery brachytherapy as an adjunct to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty to maintain patency and for the prevention of restenosis in people with peripheral vascular disease is limited, mainly due to the inconsistency of assessment and reporting of clinically relevant outcomes. More data are needed on clinically relevant outcomes such as health related quality of life (HRQOL) or limb salvage and longer-term outcomes, together with comparisons with other techniques such as drug eluting balloons and stents. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials, health economics and cost-effectiveness data are required before the procedure could be recommended for widespread use.