Intracoronary brachytherapy with ??-radiation for the treatment of long diffuse in-stent restenosis

Randomized comparison between intracoronary β-radiation brachytherapy and implantation of paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of diffuse in-stent restenosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Intracoronary brachytherapy was the primary therapeutic option for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) during the last years. Especially for the treatment of diffuse ISR (lesions >10mm), beta-source brachytherapy was significantly superior to singular balloon angioplasty. Despite lacking clinical database, the implantation of drug eluting stents recently became a common procedure for the treatment of ISR. This randomized trial aimed to compare the efficacy of beta-brachytherapy with beta-radioisotopes (90)Sr/(90)Y and paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of diffuse ISR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-seven patients with diffuse ISR were randomly assigned to beta-brachytherapy after balloon angioplasty (Beta-Cath in 17 patients) or paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation (Taxus-Express2 in 20 patients). Six-month clinical follow-up was obtained for all patients, while angiographic follow-up was available for 30 patients.

RESULTS

Binary ISR (restenosis >50%) within target segment was observed in three patients treated with Beta-Cath, of which one needed target segment revascularisation for recurrent ISR, whereas no significant restenosis occurred in the patients treated with Taxus-Express2 (P=0.037). No further major adverse cardiac (target segment revascularisation, myocardial infarction, death) was found in either group (P=NS). Stent implantation was the more time-saving (31+/-11 min versus 60+/-23 min, P<0.001) procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this trial revealed a significant reduction of binary restenosis in the Taxus-Express2 arm, we found no difference in clinical outcome after implantation of paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of diffuse ISR when compared to beta-brachytherapy.

Implementing a best-treatment strategy with intracoronary brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis in patients at high risk for recurrence

BACKGROUND

The deployment of drug-eluting stents (DES) to treat bare-metal stent restenosis [in-stent restenosis (ISR)] has become routine practice, with a consequential decline in the use of intracoronary brachytherapy (ICBT). However, there are concerns as to the long-term safety profile of DES, particularly in terms of late stent thrombosis. In addition, an appropriate treatment strategy for stenosis within DES has not been developed. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of best treatment with ICBT for ISR in patients at high risk for future recurrence.

METHODS

Forty-seven consecutive patients with symptomatic ISR with at least one or more increased risk criteria for recurrence were treated with beta-radiation. The patients received best treatment based on avoidance of previously reported procedural risk factors for recurrence (incomplete stent apposition, dissection, geographical miss, and damage to the noninjured vessel segment), deferring ICBT when provisional stenting was performed. A beta-radiation dose of 20 Gy was used, and clopidogrel was prescribed for at least 6 months.

RESULTS

Treatment was successful for all patients without in-hospital complications. ICBT increased the total intervention procedure time by 15+/-10 min. ISR length was 25.4+/-11.5 mm. The angiographic minimal luminal diameter (MLD) was 2.24+/-0.43 mm after ICBT versus 0.75+/-0.58 mm at baseline (P<.05). On 9-month follow-up, the MLD was 1.93+/-0.48 mm (P<.05 vs. baseline). Binary restenosis was detected in six (13%) patients. At 29.7+/-9.3 months of follow-up, target lesion revascularization or target vessel (nonlesion) revascularization was performed in 17 (36%) patients. Only one patient suffered a myocardial infarction, and no deaths were observed.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of a best-practice protocol for the use of ICBT to treat ISR can result in a safe and effective clinical and angiographic outcome. Under these circumstances and with appropriate patient selection, ICBT may continue to be of value despite the popular use of DES.