Superiority of sirolimus eluting stent compared with intracoronary beta radiation for treatment of in-stent restenosis: a matched comparison

Recurrent angina after coronary angioplasty: mechanisms, diagnostic and therapeutic options

Recurrent angina in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention is defined as recurrence of chest pain or chest discomfort. Careful assessment is recommended to differentiate between non-cardiac and cardiac causes. In the case of the latter, recurrent angina occurrence can be related to structural ('stretch pain', in-stent restenosis, in-stent thrombosis, incomplete revascularization, progression of coronary atherosclerosis) or functional (coronary micro-vascular dysfunction, epicardial coronary spasm) causes. Even though a complete diagnostic algorithm has not been validated, ECG exercise testing, stress imaging and invasive assessment of coronary blood flow and coronary vaso-motion (i.e. coronary flow reserve, provocation testing for coronary spasm) may be required. When repeated coronary revascularization is not indicated, therapeutic approaches should aim at targeting the underlying mechanism for the patient's symptoms using a variety of drugs currently available such as beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine or ranolazine.

Off-label use of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents: a lesion-specific systematic review of long-term outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate differences in lesion-specific outcomes with the "off-label" use of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS).

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed, the Cochrane databases, and other Web were searched for studies evaluating off-label use of DES and BMS with the same characteristics. Of 1,258 abstracts or manuscripts reviewed, 112 studies were included (total N = 23,438). Studies were excluded if patients received both types of stent or no stent; lesion type was unknown; lesion-specific outcomes for ≥6 months were unavailable; or <25 patients were enrolled.

RESULTS

Overall mortality at 6-12 months was approximately 3% for BMS and DES for off-label use. Increase in mortality was greater from 6-12 months to 2 years with BMS than with DES (3.3%-9.1%; 2.8%-4.1%); however, rates were similar at 3 years (BMS: 18.8%; DES:15.3%). Myocardial Infarction rates were similar for both types at 6-12 months (BMS: 6.5%; DES: 6.0%). Overall rates of stent thrombosis were 1.8% and 1.7% for BMS and DES, respectively. Similar or slightly lower rates of stent thrombosis were seen for most lesion types, except higher rates for small vessels for BMS (5.2%) and true bifurcation for DES (3.3%). Rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were 7.5% for BMS and 19.6% for DES at 6-12 months. At 2-years TLR remained lower than DES. When the combined group was compared to registry data alone, similar values were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis were similar in patients receiving BMS or DES, while TLR rates were lower in DES patients.

Impact of different re-stenting strategies on expansion of a drug-eluting stent implanted to treat bare-metal stent restenosis

We used intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to compare the expansion of drug-eluting stents (DES) implanted to treat bare-metal stent (BMS) restenosis after 3 common re-stenting strategies. A total of 80 consecutive BMS restenotic targets were re-stented either directly (n = 30, group 1) or after low-pressure (<8 atm) pre-dilation with an undersize regular balloon (n = 16, group 2) or after high-pressure (>12 atm) pre-dilation with a semicompliant balloon the same or greater diameter as the original BMS diameter (n = 34, group 3). More patients from groups 2 and 3 had diabetes mellitus. The targets in group 1 were more proximal and focal. Lesions from groups 2 and 3 were more severe. The size and deployment pressure of the DESs and the achieved angiographic results were all similar. The post-intervention minimum stent area and the percentage of expansion of DES (minimum stent area/distal reference lumen area x 100%) were, however, both significantly larger in group 3 (6.4 +/- 1.5 mm(2) in group 3 vs 5.6 +/- 1.6 mm(2) in group 1 vs 4.4 +/- 1.4 mm(2) in group 2, p <0.001; and 88 +/- 30% in group 3 vs 74 +/- 14% in group 1 vs 73 +/- 23% in group 2, p = 0.021). A post-intervention minimum stent area <5.0 mm(2) was seen in only 3 lesions in group 3 (8.8%) versus 14 in group 1 (46.7%) and 11 in group 2 (68.8%; adjusted odds ratio 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.38, p <0.001). Overall, the acute lumen gain was mainly from BMS re-expansion; however, the BMS volume increased the most in group 3 (p <0.001). In conclusion, high-pressure pre-dilation leads to superior post-intervention expansion of DESs implanted to treat BMS restenosis, regardless of the original expansion because of the greater BMS re-expansion.

Use of sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of in-stent restenosis: long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to assess (i) the feasibility, safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) in treating in-stent restenosis (ISR), (ii) the risk factors for recurrent ISR, and (iii) the long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

METHODS

Between May 2002 and April 2004, 100 consecutive patients with evidence of myocardial ischaemia and 112 ISRs in native coronary arteries were treated using SESs. We evaluated the rate of procedural and clinical success, the incidence of in-hospital and long-term MACE, the recurrence rate of ISR after 6-8 months, and the risk factors for recurrent ISR and follow-up MACE.

RESULTS

Forty-five percent of the lesions were directly stented. After stent implantation, the minimal lumen diameter increased from 0.51 +/- 0.32 to 2.50 +/- 0.32 mm in the stents and to 2.30 +/- 0.35 mm in the lesions (acute gain 1.99 +/- 0.37 mm). The procedural success rate was 99%. The clinical success rate was 88%. MACE occurred in 2.0% of patients during hospitalisation and in 12.8% after a median follow-up of 15.1 months (interquartile range 8.4-19.7). The recurrence rate of ISR was 11.8% after a median follow-up of 7.7 months (interquartile range 7.4-8.4). The risk for recurrent ISR was significantly higher in patients with diabetes or hypertension, in those aged more than 65 years and in female patients, as well as in the lesions with a small minimal lumen diameter. Three-vessel disease and age were risk factors for MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of using SESs to treat ISR, and identifies a risk profile for recurrent ISR and MACE.

Comparison of six-month angiographic and three-year outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation versus brachytherapy for bare metal in-stent restenosis

To evaluate long-term effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for diffuse bare metal in-stent restenosis (ISR), we compared 6-month angiographic and long-term (3-year) clinical outcomes of SES implantation and intracoronary brachytherapy (ICBT). SES implantation for diffuse ISR was performed in 120 consecutive patients and their results were compared with those from 240 patients treated with beta-radiation with balloons filled with rhenium-188 and mercaptoacetyltriglycine. The radiation dose was 15 or 18 Gy at a depth of 1.0 mm into the vessel wall. The primary end point was 3-year major adverse cardiac events including myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and target lesion revascularization. The 2 groups were similar in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. Lesion lengths were 25.1 +/- 14.2 mm in the SES group and 24.5 +/- 10.4 mm in the ICBT group (p = 0.15). In-stent acute gain was greater in the SES group than in the ICBT group (2.23 +/- 0.62 vs 1.91 +/- 0.54 mm, p <0.001). We obtained 6-month angiographic follow-up in 287 patients (79.7%). In-segment angiographic restenoses were 7.4% (7 of 94) in the SES group and 26.4% (51 of 193) in the ICBT group (p <0.05). Two myocardial infarctions (1 in each group) and 5 deaths (4 in SES group, 1 in ICBT group) occurred during 3-year follow-up. At 3 years, survival rates without target lesion revascularization (94.1 +/- 2.2% vs 84.6 +/- 2.3%, p = 0.011) and major adverse cardiac events (92.5 +/- 2.4% vs 84.2 +/- 2.4%, respectively, p = 0.03) were higher in the SES than in the ICBT group. In conclusion, compared with ICBT, SES implantation for diffuse ISR is more effective in decreasing recurrent restenosis and improving long-term outcomes.

Effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in patients with bare-metal in-stent restenosis: meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

We sought to synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents for bare-metal in-stent restenosis.

BACKGROUND

Although there is clinical evidence that drug-eluting stents are associated with better results than other treatments for in-stent restenosis, they are not yet approved for this indication. Meta-analysis of randomized trials may yield more precise estimates of treatment effects and enable a rapid adoption of effective treatments in clinical practice.

METHODS

Data sources included PubMed and conference proceedings. Prespecified criteria were met by 4 randomized studies comparing sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents versus balloon angioplasty or vascular brachytherapy in 1,230 patients with bare-metal in-stent restenosis. Studies reported the clinical outcomes of efficacy and safety during a minimum of 9 months. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization.

RESULTS

No significant heterogeneity was found across trials, thus showing a similar effect size regardless of the use of balloon angioplasty or vascular brachytherapy as comparators. The risk of target lesion revascularization (odds ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 0.49; p < 0.001) and that of angiographic restenosis (odds ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.49; p = 0.001) were markedly lower in patients treated with drug-eluting stents. There were no differences between patients treated with drug-eluting stents and those treated with other techniques with respect to the composite of death or myocardial infarction (odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.03; p = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

Drug-eluting stents are markedly superior to conventional techniques (balloon angioplasty and vascular brachytherapy) and should be considered as first-line treatment for patients with bare-metal in-stent restenosis.

Comparison between drug-eluting stents and beta-radiation for the treatment of diffuse in-stent restenosis: clinical and angiographic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Initial reports on drug-eluting stents (DES) for the treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR) show very good outcomes. Nevertheless, few data are available on direct comparison with intracoronary brachytherapy (IBT). The aim of this study was to compare brachytherapy and DES in treatment of diffuse ISR.

METHODS

One hundred forty-one consecutive patients with diffuse ISR were treated with IBT (68 patients; beta (90Sr/90Y) emitters) or with DES (73 patients; 32 with sirolimus-eluting and 41 with paclitaxel-eluting stents). Angiographic and clinical follow-up was scheduled within 9 months.

RESULTS

The first 74 lesions were treated with IBT (group 1) and the latter 74 with DES (group 2). The two groups were well matched for clinical/angiographic characteristics. At follow-up, restenosis rates were 37.8% (28/74) in IBT group and 14.9% (11/74) in DES group (P = .0028). A diffuse pattern of recurrence was more frequent after IBT (20/74 vs 6/74, P = .005). A worse outcome after IBT was associated with the "edge effect," accounting for most failures. Recurrence within the original restenotic stent was similar in both groups (12.9% vs 14.9% in groups 1 and 2 respectively, P = .8).

CONCLUSIONS

Drug-eluting stents are more effective than IBT with beta-irradiation in reducing recurrence rates after treatment of diffuse ISR. In case of failure, the pattern of restenosis is more benign after treatment with DES.

A randomized comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent with balloon angioplasty in patients with in-stent restenosis: results of the Restenosis Intrastent: Balloon Angioplasty Versus Elective Sirolimus-Eluting Stenting (RIBS-II) trial

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with ISR remains a challenge.

METHODS

The Restenosis Intrastent: Balloon Angioplasty Versus Elective Sirolimus-Eluting Stenting (RIBS-II) study is a multicenter randomized trial conducted in 150 patients with ISR (76 allocated to SES and 74 to balloon angioplasty [BA]). The primary end point was recurrent restenosis rate at nine months. Secondary end points included prespecified subgroup analysis, lumen volume on intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), and a composite of major clinical events at one year.

RESULTS

Angiographic success was obtained in all patients. At 9-month angiographic follow-up (96% of eligible patients) minimal lumen diameter was larger (2.52 mm [interquartile range (IQR) 2.09 to 2.81] vs. 1.54 mm [IQR 0.91 to 2.05]; p < 0.001) and recurrent restenosis rate was lower (11% vs. 39%; p < 0.001) in the SES group. Prespecified subgroup analyses were consistent with the main outcome measure. Lumen volume on IVUS at 9 months was also larger (279 mm3 [IQR 227 to 300] vs. 197 mm3 [IQR 177 to 230]; p < 0.001) in the SES group. At one-year clinical follow-up (100% of patients), the event-free survival (freedom from death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) was significantly improved in the SES group (88% vs. 69%; p < 0.004) as the result of a lower requirement for target vessel revascularization (11% vs. 30%; p < 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ISR, the use of SES provides superior long-term clinical, angiographic, and IVUS outcome than BA treatment.