Analysis of stent edge restenosis with different forms of brachytherapy

An overview of in-stent restenosis in iliofemoral venous stents

BACKGROUND

Although endovenous stents have been associated with overall low morbidity, they can require reinterventions to correct stent malfunction due to in-stent restenosis (ISR). ISR has often occurred iliofemoral venous stents but has not been well described. It has been reported to develop in >70% of patients who have undergone iliofemoral venous stenting. We sought to provide an overview of ISR in iliofemoral venous stents, including the pathologic, diagnostic, and management considerations and the identification of several areas of potential research in the future.

METHODS

A search of reported English-language studies was performed in PubMed and the Cochrane Library. "In-stent restenosis," "vein," "venous," "iliac," and "iliofemoral" were used as keywords. The pertinent reports included in the present review had addressed the pathology, diagnosis, and current management options for ISR.

RESULTS

ISR refers to the narrowing of the luminal caliber of the stent owing to the development of stenosis inside the stent itself. ISR should be differentiated from stent compression. Two main types of ISR have been described: soft and hard lesions. These lesions respond differently to angioplasty. Stent inflow and shear stress are important factors in the development of ISR. The treatment options available at present include balloon angioplasty (hyperdilation or isodilation), laser ablation, atherectomy, and Z-stent placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Reintervention for ISR should be determined by the presence of residual or recurrent symptoms and not simply by a numeric value obtained from an imaging study. Overall stent occlusion due to ISR is rare, and no role exists for prophylactic angioplasty to treat asymptomatic ISR. The current treatment options for ISR are mostly durable and effective. However, more research is needed on methods to prevent the development of ISR. The role of antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents in the prevention of ISR requires further investigation, with particular attention to unique subset of patients (after thrombosis vs nonthrombotic iliac vein lesions). For high-risk, post-thrombotic patients, anticoagulation can be considered to prevent ISR. The role of triple therapy (anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy) in the prevention of ISR remains unclear.

An intravascular ultrasound analysis of the mechanisms of restenosis comparing drug-eluting stents with brachytherapy

There are treatment failures after de novo drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation and after treatment with DESs or vascular brachytherapy (VBT) of in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions. We studied 38 patients who presented with DES failure (26 patients after de novo DES implantation and 12 patients after DES treatment of ISR) and 30 patients who presented with VBT failure (all after treatment of ISR). Standard clinical data were collected and volumetric intravascular ultrasound was measured. Patients who presented with DES failures were 58.8 +/- 9.6 years of age and those who presented with VBT failures were 59.8 +/- 8.7 years of age; 60.5% of DES and 58.6% of VBT failures were in men; 31.5% of DES failures and 46.6% of VBT failures occurred in diabetic patients; and times to presentation were 210 +/- 101 days in DES failures and 510 +/- 527 days in VBT failures (p = 0.001). Minimal stent area was significantly larger in VBT than in the 2 DES failure groups (de novo DES implantation and DES treatment of ISR, p <0.0001); this was associated with more neointimal hyperplasia in VBT failures (p <0.0001). After it was normalized to stent length, intimal hyperplasia was diffusely distributed in VBT failures; conversely, DES failures were associated with less intimal hyperplasia and the intimal hyperplasia was mostly focal, with greater accumulation in the proximal and mid segments. In conclusion, VBT failures were caused by significant, recurrent, and diffuse intimal hyperplasia in the setting of adequate stent expansion, whereas DES failures were caused by only modest, but focal, intimal hyperplasia in the setting of DES underexpansion.

Catheter-based 32P beta-radiation after stent implantation in porcine coronary arteries: role of source-centering and geographical miss

The present study examined the role of source-centering and geographical miss in vascular brachytherapy. After implantation of 13 mm long stents, 38 coronary arteries in 13 pigs were randomly assigned to centered brachytherapy (n = 13), eccentric brachytherapy (n = 13), or no radiation (n = 12). Geographical miss was avoided by careful placement of a 27 mm (32)P beta-radiation source. Restenosis was quantified by angiography, histomorphometry, and intravascular ultrasound at 28 days. Source-centering led to a significant (P < 0.001) reduction of in-stent area stenosis (centered radiation, 12% +/- 5%; eccentric radiation, 37% +/- 21%; control arteries, 41% +/- 13%). Despite 7 mm coverage of the edge segments, radiation was found to induce edge stenosis due to neointima formation and constrictive vascular remodeling. We conclude that centered radiation was superior to eccentric radiation in reducing in-stent luminal narrowing while radiation-induced edge stenosis was still observed despite extension of the radiation zone to 7 mm beyond the stent edges.

Geographical miss during intracoronary irradiation: impact on restenosis and determination of required safety margin length

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the incidence and effects of underdosage of injured segments during intracoronary irradiation and to define the minimal length of safety margin required to avoid mismatched source placement.

BACKGROUND

Underdosage of injured segments due to misplacement of active source has been suggested as the underlying mechanism for the occurrence of edge restenosis.

METHODS

Baseline angiograms of 112 vessels in 109 patients with in-stent restenosis undergoing coronary reintervention followed by intracoronary irradiation ((192)Ir: Checkmate, Cordis, Miami, Florida; (32)P: Gallileo, Guidant, Houston, Texas; (90)Sr/Y: Beta-Cath, Novoste, Norcross, Georgia) were analyzed. The distances between the outermost injury and outermost end of "reference isodose length" (RIL), defined as a segment with >/=90% of reference dose at 1 mm vessel wall depth, were measured. "Safety margin" was defined as the distance between the outermost injury and outermost end of the RIL, "geographical miss" (GM) as a complete injured segment not being covered by the RIL, and "restenosis" as the percent diameter stenosis >50%.

RESULTS

Baseline angiographic analysis was performed for 224 edges in 112 vessels. Geographical miss was found in 46 (20.6%) edges. The incidence of target lesion restenosis within the 78 vessels with available follow-up was 43.3% for patients with GM versus 14.9% for patients with no GM (p = 0.005). Analysis of various injured segments exposed highest restenosis rates in injured segments with negligible irradiation (27.8%) in comparison with injured segments with dose fall-off (16.7%) or injured segments with full-dose irradiation (7.7%) (p = 0.006). Receiver operating curve analysis revealed a safety margin of 10 mm required per vessel (i.e., 5-mm safety margin/edge) to achieve 95% specificity of GM.

CONCLUSIONS

Geographical miss is associated with a higher incidence of restenosis at the corresponding edges. Restenosis was more pronounced in injured segments with negligible irradiation than in injured segments at the dose fall-off zones. We recommend a safety margin of 10 mm per vessel to minimize GM.