A randomized comparison of repeat stenting with balloon angioplasty in patients with in-stent restenosis

Comparative efficacy of interventional therapies and devices for coronary in-stent restenosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

In-stent restenosis (ISR) has become a significant obstacle to interventional therapy for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for patients with coronary ISR remains controversial. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was aimed to compare and estimate the effectiveness of different PCI strategies and commercial devices for the treatment of patients with coronary ISR.

Methods

In present study, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from database inception to October 20, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials. We included studies comparing various PCI strategies for the treatment of any type of coronary ISR. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42022364308.

Results

We included 44 eligible trials including 8479 patients, 39 trials comparing the treatment effects of 10 PCIs, and 5 trials comparing the efficacy between different types of drug-eluting stent (DES) or drug-coated balloon (DCB) devices. Among the PCIs, everolimus-eluting stent was the optimal strategy considering target lesion revascularization (TLR), percent diameter stenosis (%DS), and binary restenosis (BR), and sirolimus-coated balloon was the optimal strategy considering late lumen loss (LLL). In the comparison of commercial devices, the combination strategy excimer laser coronary angioplasty plus SeQuent Please paclitaxel-coated balloon showed promising therapeutic prospects.

Conclusions

DCB and DES remain the preferred treatment strategies for coronary ISR, considering both the primary clinical outcome (TLR) and the angiographic outcomes (LLL, BR, %DS). Personalized combination interventions including DCB or DES hold promise as a novel potential treatment pattern for coronary ISR.

Derivation and validation of the ISAR score to predict the risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention for recurrent drug-eluting stent restenosis

BACKGROUND

The treatment of drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is challenging as it has a high risk of recurrence.

AIMS

The aim of this analysis was to develop and validate a model to predict the risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for recurrent DES-ISR.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational analysis was performed including consecutive patients treated with PCI for DES-ISR at two centres in Germany. Included patients were randomly divided into training and validation cohorts. Two regression analyses identified factors associated with repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR up to 1 year. The discriminative ability of the resultant model was then compared to a benchmark ISR classification model using bootstrap resampling. A classification and regression tree analysis and a numerical scoring system (the ISAR score) were used to predict the risk of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR based on the identified predictors.

RESULTS

We included 1,986 patients in the current analysis, divided randomly into training (1,471 patients, 1,778 lesions) and validation (515 patients, 614 lesions) cohorts. Four factor variables (a non-focal ISR pattern, a time interval to ISR of <6 months, ISR of the left circumflex artery and ISR in a calcified vessel) were associated with repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR at 1-year follow-up. On bootstrap resampling analysis, the C-statistic for the model including these four variables was 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.63), whereas the C-statistic for the benchmark ISR classification model was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.52-0.57), a difference that was statistically significant (delta C-statistic 0.062; 95% CI: 0.035-0.094; p<0.001). The cumulative incidence of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR was over three times higher in DES-ISR lesions with an ISAR score of ≥3 in comparison to lesions with an ISAR score of 0.

CONCLUSIONS

This study developed and validated a risk prediction model for repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR at 1-year follow-up. This model served to generate the ISAR score, a standardised tool that can be used to predict the 1-year risk of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR.

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 for Guiding In-Stent Restenosis and Stent Thrombosis Therapy

Advances in stent technology and the design of endovascular devices with thinner struts, anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic polymers, and better drug kinetics have enhanced the safety and efficacy of the second-generation drug-eluting stents and broadened their use in the therapy of high-risk patients and complex anatomies. However, despite these developments, in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis remain the Achilles' heel of percutaneous coronary intervention, with their cumulative incidence reaching up to 10% at 5 years following percutaneous coronary intervention. The treatment of stent failure poses challenges and is associated with a worse prognosis than conventional percutaneous coronary intervention. Several studies have recently highlighted the value of intravascular imaging in identifying causes of stent failure, underscored its role in treatment planning, and registries have shown that its use may be associated with better clinical outcomes. The present review aims to summarize the evidence in the field; it discusses the value of intravascular imaging in identifying the mechanisms of in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis in assessing the morphological characteristics of neointima tissue that appears to determine long-term outcomes in evaluating procedural results, and presents the findings of studies supporting its value in guiding therapy in stent failure.

Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

The introduction and subsequent iterations of drug-eluting stent technologies have substantially improved the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary interventions. However, the incidence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and the resultant need for repeated revascularization still occur at a rate of 1%-2% per year. Given that millions of drug-eluting stents are implanted each year around the globe, ISR can be considered as a pathologic entity of public health significance. The mechanisms of ISR are multifactorial. Since the first description of the angiographic patterns of ISR, the advent of intracoronary imaging has further elucidated the mechanisms and patterns of ISR. The armamentarium and treatment strategies of ISR have also evolved over time. Currently, an individualized approach using intracoronary imaging to characterize the underlying substrate of ISR is recommended. In this paper, we comprehensively reviewed the incidence, mechanisms, and imaging characterization of ISR and propose a contemporary treatment algorithm.

Management of in-stent restenosis

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains the most common cause of stent failure after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent data suggest that ISR-PCI accounts for 5-10% of all PCI procedures performed in current clinical practice. This State-of-the-Art review will primarily focus on the management of ISR but will begin by briefly discussing diagnosis and classification. We then move on to detail the evidence base underpinning the various therapeutic strategies for ISR before finishing with a proposed ISR management algorithm based on current scientific data.

In-hospital and 1-Year Outcomes of Repeated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for In-stent Restenosis With Acute Coronary Syndrome Presentation

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is the Achilles' heel of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There have been controversial data about outcomes of repeated PCI (redo-PCI) for ISR. This study aims to determine the predictors of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients underwent redo-PCI for ISR.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, all patients with acute coronary syndrome who were underwent successful PCI for ISR at Tehran Herat Center (between 2004 and 2019) were eligible for inclusion. Patients with moderate to severe valvular heart disease and/or hematological disorders were excluded. Participants were divided into 2 groups based on the occurrence of the MACE [composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass grafting, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization]; then, the study variables were compared between the 2 groups. Finally, the predictors of MACE were identified using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 748 redo-PCI patients (mean age: 65.2 ± 10.1; 71.0% males), 631 patients had met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-four patients (9.8%) developed MACE within a 1-year follow-up period. Multivessel disease, primary PCI, Ad-hoc PCI, history of non-ST-segment elevation MI, and diabetes mellitus were independent predictors for MACE. In a subgroup analysis, 30 patients who experienced third PCI (target lesion revascularization/target vessel revascularization) were followed more as 1-year MACE. Among these patients, 14 MACEs were observed during the last follow-up (till June 2020).

CONCLUSIONS

Multivessel disease, primary PCI, and history of non-ST-segment elevation MI were the predictors of higher 1-year MACE, whereas Ad-hoc PCI and diabetes mellitus had a protective effect on MACE.

Added Value of Computed Tomography Virtual Intravascular Endoscopy in the Evaluation of Coronary Arteries with Stents or Plaques

Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is a widely used imaging modality for diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD) but is limited by a high false positive rate when evaluating coronary arteries with stents and heavy calcifications. Virtual intravascular endoscopy (VIE) images generated from CCTA can be used to qualitatively assess the vascular lumen and might be helpful for overcoming this challenge. In this study, one hundred subjects with coronary stents underwent both CCTA and invasive coronary angiography (ICA). A total of 902 vessel segments were analyzed using CCTA and VIE. The vessel segments were first analyzed on CCTA alone. Then, using VIE, the segments were classified qualitatively as either negative or positive for in-stent restenosis (ISR) or CAD. These results were compared, using ICA as the reference, to determine the added diagnostic value of VIE. Of the 902 analyzed vessel segments, CCTA/VIE had sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (shown in %) of 93.9/90.2, 96.2/98.2, 96.0/97.7, 70.0/83.1, and 99.4/99.0, respectively, in diagnosing ISR or CAD, with significantly improved specificity (p = 0.025), accuracy (p = 0.046), and positive predictive value (p = 0.047). VIE can be a helpful addition to CCTA when evaluating coronary arteries.

Is Coronary Brachytherapy Staging a Comeback for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The catheter-based coronary intervention has become a well-established therapeutic modality for obstructive coronary artery disease. However, in-stent restenosis remains a significant limitation of coronary intervention despite the use of newer devices. Intravascular brachytherapy was introduced to treat recurrent in-stent restenosis but only modestly adopted. This review will discuss the mechanism of intracoronary brachytherapy, available clinical evidence of brachytherapy in recurrent in-stent restenosis treatment, and the future of coronary brachytherapy in coronary intervention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Drug-eluting stents have an inherent limitation as they leave a permanent metal layer inside an artery when deployed. Recently, drug-coated balloon technology has emerged to treat coronary artery disease as a combination of balloon angioplasty and local drug delivery without leaving a metal layer behind. Recent European guidelines recommended using drug-coated balloons when treating in-stent restenosis treatment, while the US guidelines have not yet addressed the use of drug-coated balloons in such cases. Coronary brachytherapy is a valuable addition to treat these challenging diseases despite several logistic issues. If there are newer technologies with easier setup, such as drug-coated balloons, coronary brachytherapy resurgence is improbable in the contemporary era, although it may not become obsolete.

Outcome of endovascular recanalization for intracranial in-stent restenosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is one of the long-term adverse outcomes of endovascular angioplasty and stenting for symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis. In this study, we try to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment for intracranial ISR.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected patients with intracranial ISR who underwent endovascular treatment from June 2012 to August 2019 at a high-volume stroke center. Successful recanalization was defined as ≤30% residual stenosis. Stroke, myocardial infarction, and death after stenting within 30 days were used to evaluate periprocedural safety. Recurrent stroke in the territory of the culprit vessel and re-ISR in patients with clinical and vascular imaging follow-up data were used to evaluate the long-term outcome.

RESULTS

32 patients (59.6±7.2 years old) with ISR were recruited, including 22 patients (68.8%) treated with balloon dilatation, 8 patients (25%) with stenting, and 2 patients (6.3%) with failed procedures. Successful recanalization was achieved in 71.9% (23/32) of patients. There was no stroke, myocardial infarction or death within 30 days after the procedure. Recurrent stroke was found in 10.7% (3/28) of the patients, and re-ISR was found in 42.1% (8/19) of the patients. The re-ISR rate was lower in patients with stenting than in those with balloon dilatation (0% vs 57.1%, p=0.090), and in patients with successful recanalization than in those with unsuccessful recanalization (33.3% vs 75.0%, p=0.352), but with no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

The periprocedural safety of endovascular treatment for intracranial ISR may be acceptable, but the long-term rates of recurrent stroke and re-ISR remain at high levels.

In-stent restenosis of drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: Clinical presentation, angiographic features, and outcomes

Objective:

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a risk factor for developing in-stent restenosis (ISR) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to examine the presentation and outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR in diabetics.

Methods:

This retrospective study included consecutive patients with clinical DES-ISR, who were hospitalized between January 2013 and December 2017 and who were grouped based on the presence or absence of DM. Clinical, angiographic features and 1-year outcomes [composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat-target lesion revascularization] were compared.

Results:

Baseline characteristics of the DM group (n=109) were comparable to the non-DM group (n=82), except for the higher prevalence of hypertension and dyslipidemia in the former (60.6% vs. 46.3%, p=0.050; 74.4% vs. 57.8%, p=0.034, respectively). Clinical presentation was similar in both groups [acute coronary syndrome (ACS): 62.4% vs. 61%, p=0.843; MI: 34.9% vs. 34.1%, p=0.918). Diabetics had a higher prevalence of stent-edge restenosis (20.3% vs. 9.2%, p=0.019). The treatment strategy was similar in both groups with 52.3% in the DM group and 57.3% in the non-DM group undergoing PCI (p=0.513). One-year outcomes of the DM group were not different from those of the non-DM group (14.7% vs. 17.1%, p=0.683). Age [hazard ratio (HR), 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01–1.10; p=0.017], MI presentation (HR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.14–4.80; p=0.020), and chronic kidney disease (CKD: HR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.21–6.58; p=0.016) were predictors of poor outcomes.

Conclusion:

Stent-edge restenosis is more common in diabetics. Clinical presentation and 1-year outcomes following DES-ISR are similar in diabetics and non-diabetics. Age, MI presentation, CKD, and not DM were predictors of poor outcomes following DES-ISR.

In-stent restenosis of drug-eluting stents: clinical presentation and outcomes in a real-world scenario

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have substantially reduced the incidence of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR), but the problem persists. Clinical presentation and outcomes of DES-ISR in a real-world scenario remains underreported.

RESULTS

In this retrospective study, we examined medical records of 191 consecutive patients with DES-ISR (210 ISR lesions) hospitalized between January 2013 and December 2017. ISR clinical presentation was classified as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or non-ACS. Clinical, angiographic features and 1-year outcomes [composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and repeat-target lesion revascularization] for these two groups were compared. The mean age of study population was 61 ± 10 years and 81.2% were males. ACS was the dominant clinical presentation mode occurring in 118 (61.8%) patients. MI was seen in 66 (34.6%) patients. Female gender (odds ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-6.52; P = 0.026) and chronic kidney disease (odds ratio, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.05-14.20; P = 0.043) correlated significantly with ACS ISR presentation. A majority [104 (54.5%)] of patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), of whom 72 (69.2%) received a new DES. The rest either underwent CABG (26.2%) or received medical therapy (19.4%). Patients presenting with ACS had a significantly worse clinical outcome at 1-year follow-up (ACS versus non-ACS presentation: hazard ratio [HR], 2.66; 95% CI, 1.09-6.50; P = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

DES-ISR presents most commonly as ACS. Female gender and chronic kidney disease seem to be associated with ACS presentation. ACS presentation of ISR is associated with worse 1-year outcomes. Early identification of those with ACS risk and closer follow-up may improve outcomes.

Drug-eluting balloons versus new generation drug-eluting stents for the management of in-stent restenosis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized studies

Background

New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) was more effective in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) compared with the first-generation DES. Drug-eluting balloons (DEB) and new-generation DES had been available strategies in treatment of bare-metal stents/DES ISR (BMS/DES-ISR). Six new randomized trials have recently examined the angiographic outcomes and one-year clinical outcomes of DEB and new generation DES in BMS/DES-ISR. However, the optimal management for BMS/DES-ISR lesions remains controversial.

Methods

We searched the randomized clinical trials evaluating the angiographic outcomes and one-year clinical outcomes of DEB and new-generation DES in patients with BMS/DES-ISR. The primary endpoints were the angiographic outcomes, including the minimal luminal diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis % (DS%), late lumen loss (LLL), and binary restenosis (BR).

Results

A total of six randomized clinical trials with 1177 BMS/DES-ISR patients were included in our meta-analysis. For angiographic outcomes, there were significantly less MLD and more DS% with DEB compared to new-generation DES (MLD: MD = -0.18, 95% CI: -0.31- -0.04, P < 0.001; DS%: MD = 5.68, 95% CI: 1.00-10.37, P < 0.001). Moreover, for one-year clinical outcomes, DEB was associated with a significant increase risk in target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR = 2.93, 95% CI: 1.50-5.72, P = 0.002). However, DEB was associated with higher risks of major adverse cardiac event, target vessel revascularization, TLR, BR, and more DS% only in DES-ISR group.

Conclusions

DEB and new-generation DES have the similar clinical efficacy for the treatment of BMS-ISR. However, DES showed more MLD, less DS%, and a decreased risk of TLR for the treatment of DES-ISR.

Therapeutic Options for In-Stent Restenosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is a complex disease process that became apparent shortly after the introduction of stents into clinical practice. This review seeks to define in-stent restenosis (ISR) as well as to summarize the major treatment options that have been developed and studied over the past two decades.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent developments in drug-coated balloons and bioresorbable vascular scaffolds have added new potential treatments for ISR. Two recent network meta-analyses performed a head-to-head comparison of all the various treatment modalities in order to identify the best approach to management of ISR. Current data suggests that repeat stenting with second-generation drug-eluting stents is most likely to lead to the best angiographic and clinical outcomes. In situations where repeat stenting is not preferable, drug-coated balloon therapy seems to be a reasonably effective alternative.

Current Management of In-Stent Restenosis

Despite the advent of the drug-eluting stents (DES) and improved stent design, in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenging problem. The currently available options for treatment of ISR include angioplasty alone, repeat stenting with DES or drug-coated balloons. Several recent studies have compared the available options for treating ISR in an attempt to identify the preferred therapeutic strategy. In this review, we will discuss the currently available therapeutic strategies for the management of patients with ISR and the evidence supporting their use.

Restenosis of the Coronary Arteries: Past, Present, Future Directions

Restenosis is a pathologic response to vascular injury, characterized by neointimal hyperplasia and progressive narrowing of a stented vessel segment. Although advances in stent design have led to a dramatic reduction in the incidence of restenosis, it continues to represent the most common cause of target lesion failure following percutaneous coronary intervention. Efforts to maximize restenosis prevention, through careful consideration of modifiable risk factors and an individualized approach, are critical, as restenosis, once established, can be particularly difficult to treat. Novel approaches are on the horizon that have the potential to alter the natural history of this stubborn disease.

Treatment options for stent restenosis: insights from intracoronary imaging, clinical trials, and registries

Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have markedly reduced the incidence of stent restenosis (SR), the increased number and complexity of percutaneous coronary interventions performed worldwide explain the sustained prevalence of SR. Intracoronary imaging techniques remain essential tools to unravel the underlying mechanical causes potentially leading to SR. Current clinical trial data suggest that DES are the most effective therapy for the management of both bare-metal stents SR and DES-SR. In this setting, however, drug-eluting balloons represent a valid therapeutic alternative with the attractive advantage of not requiring the implantation of an additional metallic layer. In this review, we will discuss trial data on the historical evolution and the evidence supporting currently available therapeutic modalities for patients with bare-metal stents SR or DES-SR.

Drug-eluting balloons versus drug-eluting stents for the management of in-stent restenosis: A meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

DES implantation and DEB were available strategies in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR, but the optimal management for ISR lesions remains controversial.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies which reported the clinical outcomes of using DEB comparing with DES implantation in patients with ISR. Clinical endpoints such as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death, and myocardial infarction were assessed.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials and five observational cohort studies with 962 patients in the DEB group and 908 patients in the DES group met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between DEB and DES in major clinical outcomes, such as MACE (OR 1.01; 95% CI: 0.64-1.58; p=0.97; I²=0%), all-cause death (OR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.54-1.98; p=0.91; I²=0%), cardiovascular death (OR 1.44; 95% CI: 0.57-3.65; p=0.44; I²=0%), stent thrombosis (OR 0.61; 95% CI: 0.16-2.33; p=0.47; I²=0%), and myocardial infarction (OR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.53-1.94; p=0.96; I²=0%). DEB was associated with a significant increase in target lesion revascularization (OR 1.54; 95% CI: 1.10-2.15; p=0.01; I²=57%).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of ISR using DEB led to comparable clinical outcomes with DES implantation.

“Bare Metal” Stent Placement Complications: Interventional Treatment

The rapid implementation of stents in standard practice and expansion of the indication for their utilization also introduced a new problem: in-stent restenosis. Management of patients with restenosis after stent implantation is still considered an important clinical problem. Although balloon angioplasty is still one of the prefered strategies that provide satisfactory results and a low incidence of complication, repeat stenting with “drug eluting” stents or “drug balloon” angioplasty become a very atractive methods of treatment for selected lesions and patients.

Drug-eluting stents or balloon angioplasty for drug-eluting stent-associated restenosis: An observational follow-up study of first-time versus repeated restenosis

BACKGROUND

The treatment of patients with repeated drug-eluting stent-in stent restenosis (DES-ISR) remains a challenge and a burdensome clinical problem.

METHODS

Over a 3-year period, 130 lesions in 123 patients who underwent target lesion revascularization (TLR) for DES restenosis were included in the study. They were classified into two main groups: the first group having first-time DES-ISR (n = 84), and the second group having rerestenosis of DES-treated DES-ISR (n = 39). Further classification according to the treatment strategy yielded four subgroups: balloon angioplasty (BA) in first-time DES-ISR (n = 66), re-DES in the same group (n = 22), BA in rerestenosis of DES-treated DES-ISR (n = 30), and re-DES in the same group (n = 10). Angiographic follow-up was planned at 1 year, and clinical follow-up for re-TLR up to 2 years later.

RESULTS

The mean duration of clinical follow-up was 24.8 ± 9.7 months. The angiographic follow-up data were obtained for 108 patients (87.8%) at 1 year. Among patients treated for first-time DES-ISR, late lumen loss (0.65 ± 0.83 mm and 1.02 ± 0.52 mm, p = 0.02) and binary restenosis rates (25% and 49.1%, p = 0.05) were significantly less in those undergoing re-DES compared with BA. This benefit was not evident in patients having rerestenosis of DES-treated DES-ISR. Re-TLR at 2 years was significantly less in the re-DES group compared with BA (log rank p = 0.038) in first-time DES-ISR patients, while no significant difference (log rank p = 0.58) was observed in those having rerestenosis of DES-treated DES-ISR.

CONCLUSION

While a strategy of re-DES would be better than BA in first-time DES-ISR, this could not be extrapolated to rerestenosis cases.

Long-Term Results of Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Balloons in Patients With Bare-Metal In-Stent Restenosis: 3-Year Follow-Up of the RIBS V Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in patients with bare-metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

The relative long-term clinical efficacy of current therapeutic modalities in patients with ISR remains unknown.

METHODS

The 3-year clinical follow-up (pre-specified endpoint) of patients included in the RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare-Metal Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation) randomized clinical trial was analyzed. All patients were followed yearly using a pre-defined structured questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 189 patients with bare-metal stent ISR were allocated to either EES (n = 94) or DEB (n = 95). Clinical follow-up at 1, 2, and 3 years was obtained in all patients (100%). Compared with patients treated with DEB, those treated with EES obtained better angiographic results, including larger minimal luminal diameter at follow-up (primary study endpoint; 2.36 ± 0.6 mm vs. 2.01 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.001). At 3 years, the rates of cardiac death (2% vs. 1%), myocardial infarction (4% vs. 5%) and target vessel revascularization (9% vs. 5%) were similar in the DEB and EES arms. Importantly, however, at 3 years, the rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the EES arm (2% vs. 8%; p = 0.04; hazard ratio: 0.23; 95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.93). The need for "late" (>1 year) target vessel (3 [3.2%] vs. 3 [3.2%]; p = 0.95) and target lesion (1 [1%] vs. 2 [2.1%]; p = 0.54) revascularization was low and similar in the 2 arms. Rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis (1% vs. 0%) were also similar in the 2 arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-year clinical follow-up of the RIBS V clinical trial confirms the sustained safety and efficacy of EES and DEB in patients treated for bare-metal stent ISR. In this setting, EES reduce the need for target lesion revascularization at very long-term follow-up. (RIBS V [Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent] [RIBS V]; NCT01239953).

The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloons for the treatment of in-stent restenosis as compared with drug-eluting stents and with conventional balloon angioplasty

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still associated with a high incidence of recurrence. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for the treatment of ISR as compared with conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

METHODS

Between January 2006 and May 2012 a total of 177 patients (188 lesions, 64.1 ± 11.7 years old) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for ISR were retrospectively enrolled. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients treated with DEB (n = 58, 32.8%), conventional BA (n = 65, 36.7%), or DES (n = 54, 30.5%). The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization(TLR).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were not different except for a history of previous MI, which was more frequent in patients treated by conventional BA or DES than in patients treated by DEB (40.0% vs. 48.1% vs. 17.2%, respectively, p = 0.002). The total incidences of MACEs were 10.7%, 7.4%, and 15.4% in patients treated by DEB, DES, or conventional BA, respectively (p > 0.05). TLR was more frequent in patients treated by conventional BA than in patients treated by DEB or DES, but this was not statistically significant (10.8% vs. 6.9% vs. 3.7%, p > 0.05 between all group pairs, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that percutaneous coronary intervention using DEB might be a feasible alternative to conventional BA or DES implantation for treatment of coronary ISR. Further large-scaled, randomized study assessing long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes will be needed.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Balloons in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis (from the RIBS IV and V Randomized Clinical Trials)

Treatment of patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenge. This study sought to compare the efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) and drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) with paclitaxel in patients with ISR. A pooled analysis of the Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent (RIBS IV) and Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare-Metal Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent (RIBS V) randomized trials was performed using patient-level data. In both trials, EESs were compared with DEBs in patients with ISR (RIBS V included 189 patients with bare-metal ISR; RIBS IV included 309 patients with drug-eluting ISR). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical in both trials. A total of 249 patients were allocated to EES and 249 to DEB. Clinical follow-up at 1 year was obtained in all (100%) patients and late angiography (median 249 days) in 91% of eligible patients. Compared with patients treated with DEBs, patients treated with EESs obtained better short-term results (postprocedural minimal lumen diameter 2.28 ± 0.5 vs 2.12 ± 0.4 mm, p <0.0001). At follow-up, patients treated with EESs had larger in-segment minimal lumen diameter (primary end point 2.16 ± 0.7 vs 1.88 ± 0.6 mm, p <0.0001; absolute mean difference 0.28 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.40) and net lumen gain (1.33 ± 0.6 vs 1.00 ± 0.7 mm, p <0.0001) and had lower %diameter stenosis (19 ± 21% vs 28 ± 22%, p <0.0001) and binary restenosis rate (8.7% vs 15.7%, p = 0.02). Consistent results were observed in the in-lesion analysis. No interactions were found between the underlying stent type and treatment effects. At 1-year clinical follow-up, the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization was significantly reduced in the EES arm (8.8% vs 14.5%, p = 0.03; hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94) mainly driven by a lower need for target vessel revascularization (6% vs 12.4%, p = 0.01, hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.86). This pooled analysis of the RIBS IV and RIBS V randomized trials demonstrates the superiority of EES over DEB in the treatment of patients with ISR.

Treatment strategies for coronary in-stent restenosis: systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis of 24 randomised trials and 4880 patients

STUDY QUESTION

What is the most safe and effective interventional treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis?

METHODS

In a hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and major scientific websites were screened up to 10 August 2015. Randomised controlled trials of patients with any type of coronary in-stent restenosis (either of bare metal stents or drug eluting stents; and either first or recurrent instances) were included. Trials including multiple treatments at the same time in the same group or comparing variants of the same intervention were excluded. Primary endpoints were target lesion revascularisation and late lumen loss, both at six to 12 months. The main analysis was complemented by network subanalyses, standard pairwise comparisons, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS

Twenty four trials (4880 patients), including seven interventional treatments, were identified. Compared with plain balloons, bare metal stents, brachytherapy, rotational atherectomy, and cutting balloons, drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents were associated with a reduced risk of target lesion revascularisation and major adverse cardiac events, and with reduced late lumen loss. Treatment ranking indicated that drug eluting stents had the highest probability (61.4%) of being the most effective for target lesion vascularisation; drug coated balloons were similarly indicated as the most effective treatment for late lumen loss (probability 70.3%). The comparative efficacy of drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents was similar for target lesion revascularisation (summary odds ratio 1.10, 95% credible interval 0.59 to 2.01) and late lumen loss reduction (mean difference in minimum lumen diameter 0.04 mm, 95% credible interval -0.20 to 0.10). Risks of death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis were comparable across all treatments, but these analyses were limited by a low number of events. Trials had heterogeneity regarding investigation periods, baseline characteristics, and endpoint reporting, with a lack of information at long term follow-up. Direct and indirect evidence was also inconsistent for the comparison between drug eluting stents and drug coated balloons.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Compared with other currently available interventional treatments for coronary in-stent restenosis, drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents are associated with superior clinical and angiographic outcomes, with a similar comparative efficacy.

FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING

This study received no external funding. The authors declare no competing interests. No additional data available.

Percutaneous coronary interventional strategies for treatment of in-stent restenosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents is the standard of care for treatment of native coronary artery stenoses, but optimum treatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) have not been established. We aimed to compare and rank percutaneous treatment strategies for ISR.

METHODS

We did a network meta-analysis to synthesise both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for randomised controlled trials published up to Oct 31, 2014, of different PCI strategies for treatment of any type of coronary ISR. The primary outcome was percent diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014191.

FINDINGS

We deemed 27 trials eligible, including 5923 patients, with follow-up ranging from 6 months to 60 months after the index intervention. Angiographic follow-up was available for 4975 (84%) of 5923 patients 6-12 months after the intervention. PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was the most effective treatment for percent diameter stenosis, with a difference of -9·0% (95% CI -15·8 to -2·2) versus drug-coated balloons (DCB), -9·4% (-17·4 to -1·4) versus sirolimus-eluting stents, -10·2% (-18·4 to -2·0) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents, -19·2% (-28·2 to -10·4) versus vascular brachytherapy, -23·4% (-36·2 to -10·8) versus bare metal stents, -24·2% (-32·2 to -16·4) versus balloon angioplasty, and -31·8% (-44·8 to -18·6) versus rotablation. DCB were ranked as the second most effective treatment, but without significant differences from sirolimus-eluting (-0·2% [95% CI -6·2 to 5·6]) or paclitaxel-eluting (-1·2% [-6·4 to 4·2]) stents.

INTERPRETATION

These findings suggest that two strategies should be considered for treatment of any type of coronary ISR: PCI with everolimus-eluting stents because of the best angiographic and clinical outcomes, and DCB because of its ability to provide favourable results without adding a new stent layer.

FUNDING

None.

Mechanisms of balloon angioplasty and repeat stenting in patients with drug-eluting in-stent restenosis

BACKGROUND

Mechanisms of lumen gain during reinterventions in patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) remain unsettled.

METHODS

We sought to assess the mechanisms of acute lumen gain after balloon angioplasty (BA) and repeat drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in patients with DES-ISR. Following a prospective protocol 29 consecutive patients with DES-ISR were sequentially treated with BA and new DES implantation under a multimodality intracoronary imaging assessment including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Imaging studies were systematically obtained, at baseline, after BA, and after DES. Results of interventions were compared using volumetric and morphometric (ISR pattern and injury score) analyses.

RESULTS

IVUS and OCT demonstrated that acute lumen gain after BA and DES equally results from a reduction in intra-stent neointimal volume and further DES expansion. As compared with BA, repeat DES implantation not only increased final lumen (baseline 39.6±18.5mm(3), post-BA 58.6±26.6mm(3), post-DES 84.2±30.8mm(3), all p<0.001) but also provided a smoother lumen (injury score 1.57±0.86 vs 0.22±0.26, p<0.001). At the 9th month of angiographic follow-up (86% patients) in-stent late loss was 0.44±0.5mm and 4 patients (16%) developed ISR. The ISR pattern on OCT was not associated with the injury score after interventions or late angiographic findings. Likewise, the injury score did not predict late angiographic outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with DES ISR, lumen gain equally results from a reduction in intra-stent neointimal volume and further DES expansion. As compared with BA, repeat DES implantation provides a larger and smoother coronary lumen.

Late results (>10 years) of intracoronary beta brachytherapy for diffuse in-stent restenosis

INTRODUCTION

Until the development of drug-eluting stents (DES), diffuse in-stent restenosis (ISR) was the main limitation of bare-metal stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Among the different treatments available, intracoronary brachytherapy (BT) emerged as one of the most promising, although it was almost abandoned with the increasing use of DES.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the Portuguese experience with 90Sr/90Y beta brachytherapy for the treatment of diffuse ISR regarding long-term (>10 years) major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and angiographic restenosis.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective, observational study included 12 consecutive patients treated between January and June 2001, mean age 58.6±9.9 years (range 43-77 years), 11 male. All had chronic stable angina, 75% had dyslipidemia, 58% had hypertension, 50% had peripheral arterial disease, 42% had diabetes and 50% had multivessel disease. Recurrent ISR was present in half of the patients and 11 had normal left ventricular function. After balloon dilatation, BT was performed using an Sr90/Y90 (Novoste Beta-CathTM) beta radiation source. All patients remained under dual antiplatelet therapy until scheduled nine-month follow-up angiography. Patients were followed for the occurrence of death (all-cause and cardiovascular), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, stent thrombosis and angiographic restenosis. MACE were defined as the combined incidence of cardiac death, MI and urgent target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

In all cases there was both clinical and angiographic success. In a mean follow-up of 10.9±2.5 years, 19 events occurred in seven patients: death in three (25%), only one cardiac (8.3%); ST-elevation MI in one (related to a non-target vessel) (8.3%); and 15 revascularizations in five (42%), of which nine were of the target vessel (mainly in the first two years). There was only one case of probable stent thrombosis. Angiographic restenosis at nine months was 27% (three out of 11 patients), of which two were total occlusions. Ten-year MACE-free survival was 42% (5 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Intracoronary beta brachytherapy for the treatment of diffuse ISR in this small cohort of patients proved to be safe and efficacious, with no late adverse events related to intracoronary radiation.

Current treatment of in-stent restenosis

Management of patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains an important clinical problem. Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have drastically reduced the incidence of ISR, treatment of DES-ISR is particularly challenging. ISR mainly results from aggressive neointimal proliferation, but recent data also suggest that neoatherosclerosis may play an important pathophysiological role. Intracoronary imaging provides unique insights to unravel the underlying substrate of ISR and may be used to guide repeated interventions. In this paper, we systematically reviewed clinical trial data with currently available therapeutic modalities, including DES and drug-coated balloons, in patients presenting with ISR within bare-metal stents or DES.

A randomized comparison of drug-eluting balloon versus everolimus-eluting stent in patients with bare-metal stent-in-stent restenosis: the RIBS V Clinical Trial (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: paclitaxel-eluting balloon vs. everolimus-eluting stent)

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) with that of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with ISR remains a challenge.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial comparing DEB with EES in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR). The primary endpoint was the minimal lumen diameter at 9 months' follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 189 patients with BMS-ISR from 25 Spanish sites were included (95 were allocated to DEB and 94 to EES). Procedural success was achieved in all patients. At late angiography (median 249 days; 92% of eligible patients), patients in the EES arm had a significantly larger minimal lumen diameter (2.36 ± 0.6 mm vs. 2.01 ± 0.6 mm, p < 0.001; absolute mean difference: 0.35 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16 to 0.53) and a lower percent of diameter stenosis (13 ± 17% vs. 25 ± 20%, p < 0.001). However, late loss (0.04 ± 0.5 mm vs. 0.14 ± 0.5 mm, p = 0.14) and binary restenosis rate (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.22) were very low and similar in both groups. Clinical follow-up (median 365 days) was obtained in all (100%) patients. Occurrences of the combined clinical outcome measure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization; 6% vs. 8%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.26 to 2.18, p = 0.6) and the need for target vessel revascularization (2% vs. 6%; HR: 0.32: 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.59, p = 0.17) were similar in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with BMS-ISR, both DEB and EES provided excellent clinical results with a very low rate of clinical and angiographic recurrences. However, compared with DEB, EES provide superior late angiographic findings. (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-eluting Balloon vs. Everolimus-eluting Stent [RIBS V]; NCT01239953).

A multicenter randomized comparison of paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter with conventional balloon angioplasty in patients with bare-metal stent restenosis and drug-eluting stent restenosis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) for the treatment of the bare-metal stent restenosis (BMS-ISR) and drug-eluting stent restenosis (DES-ISR).

METHODS

This study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized (2:1) trial conducted in 208 patients with 213 in-stent restenosis lesions (BMS-ISR: 123 lesions, DES-ISR: 90 lesions) at 13 centers in Japan. Patients were randomly assigned to a PCB group (137 patients with 142 lesions) or a conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) group (71 patients with 71 lesions). The primary end point was target vessel failure at 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Clinical and angiographic follow-up 6 months after intervention was performed in 207 patients (99.5%) with 208 lesions (97.7%). Target vessel failure was noted in 6.6% of the PCB group and 31.0% of the BA group (P < .001). Recurrent restenosis occurred in 4.3% of the PCB group and 31.9% of the BA group (P < .001). Late lumen loss was lower in the PCB group than in the BA group (0.11 ± 0.33 mm vs 0.49 ± 0.50 mm, P < .001). In PCB-treated lesions, recurrent restenosis occurred in 1.1% of patients with BMS-ISR and in 9.1% of patients with DES-ISR (P = .04). Late lumen loss was lower in patients with BMS-ISR than in patients with DES-ISR (0.05 ± 0.28 mm vs 0.18 ± 0.38 mm, P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized clinical study suggested that PCB provided much better clinical and angiographic outcomes than did conventional BA in patients with BMS-ISR and DES-ISR. Drug-eluting stent restenosis was associated with poorer outcomes compared with BMS-ISR after treatment with PCB.

Implantation of a drug-eluting stent with a different drug (switch strategy) in patients with drug-eluting stent restenosis. Results from a prospective multicenter study (RIBS III [Restenosis Intra-Stent: Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent])

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the effectiveness of a strategy of using drug-eluting stents (DES) with a different drug (switch) in patients with DES in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with DES ISR remains a challenge.

METHODS

The RIBS-III (Restenosis Intra-Stent: Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent) study was a prospective, multicenter study that aimed to assess results of coronary interventions in patients with DES ISR. The use of a different DES was the recommended strategy. The main angiographic endpoint was minimal lumen diameter at 9-month follow-up. The main clinical outcome measure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization.

RESULTS

This study included 363 consecutive patients with DES ISR from 12 Spanish sites. The different-DES strategy was used in 274 patients (75%) and alternative therapeutic modalities (no switch) in 89 patients (25%). Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups, although lesion length was longer in the switch group. At late angiographic follow-up (77% of eligible patients, median: 278 days) minimal lumen diameter was larger (1.86 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.40 ± 0.8 mm, p = 0.003) and recurrent restenosis rate lower (22% vs. 40%, p = 0.008) in the different-DES group. At the last clinical follow-up (99% of patients, median: 771 days), the combined clinical endpoint occurred less frequently (23% vs. 35%, p = 0.039) in the different-DES group. After adjustment using propensity score analyses, restenosis rate (relative risk: 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21 to 0.80, p = 0.01), minimal lumen diameter (difference: 0.41 mm, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.62, p = 0.001), and the event-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.96, p = 0.038) remained significantly improved in the switch group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with DES ISR, the implantation of a different DES provides superior late clinical and angiographic results than do alternative interventional modalities.

Absorbable stent: focus on clinical applications and benefits

Coronary stents have improved very significantly the immediate and long-term results of percutaneous coronary interventions. However, once the vessel has healed, the scaffolding function of the stent is no longer needed, and the presence of a permanent metallic prosthesis poses important disadvantages. This has led to the idea of creating new devices that are able to provide mechanical support for a determined period and then disappear from the vessel, allowing its natural healing and avoiding the risks associated with having a permanent metallic cage, such as stent thrombosis. Absorbable stents currently appear as one of the most promising fields in interventional cardiology. The present article will review the available clinical evidence regarding these devices at present and their future perspectives.