Comparison between balloon angioplasty and additional coronary stent implantation for the treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis: 18-month clinical outcomes

Management of drug eluting stent in-stent restenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal management for coronary drug eluting stent in-stent restenosis (DES ISR) is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of observational and randomized studies to compare the outcomes of management of DES ISR using DES, drug eluting balloon (DEB), or balloon angioplasty (BA).

METHODS

Eligible studies (25 single arm and 13 comparative, including 4 randomized studies with a total of 7,474 patients with DES ISR) were identified using MEDLINE search and proceedings of international meetings. Outcomes studied include major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and mortality. Follow-up ranged from 0.5 to 3.5 years (mean 1.4 years).

RESULTS

The rate of TLR was significantly lower in the DES (odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.69) and DEB (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.55) groups compared to BA. Similarly, TVR rate was significantly lower in the DES (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39-0.77) and DEB (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.58) groups compared to BA. All other outcomes were similar between the DES/BA and DEB/BA comparisons. TLR was significantly lower in the DES group compared to BA for vessels < or > 2.75 mm.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of coronary DES ISR with DES or DEB is associated with a reduction in the risk of TLR and TVR compared to BA alone. The relative risk reduction for TLR with DES is similar to DEB. DEBs have a potential role in the treatment of DES ISR by avoiding placement of another layer of stent. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Meta-analysis of same versus different stent for drug-eluting stent restenosis

Drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) can be treated by restenting using the same DES as previously placed (same stent strategy), versus switching to a stent that elutes a different drug (different stent strategy). To compare the efficacy of these strategies, a meta-analysis of controlled trials and observational studies evaluating patients with DES ISR was performed. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization or target vessel revascularization, and secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, death, and myocardial infarction. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with the generic inverse variance method using a random-effects model. The chi-square test was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Ten studies (1,680 patients) were included. There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies for any end point. The different stent strategy was found to reduce the odds of target lesion revascularization or target vessel revascularization (OR 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.96) and major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96). There was no difference between the 2 strategies in rates of death (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.16) or myocardial infarction (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that treatment of DES ISR by restenting with a different DES than previously placed may lead to improved outcomes compared with the use of the same DES. Further large-scale trials are needed to confirm this effect.

Post-marketing surveillance in the published medical and grey literature for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty catheters: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Post-marketing surveillance (PMS) may identify rare serious incidents or adverse events due to the long-term use of a medical device, which was not captured in the pre-market process. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) is a non-surgical procedure that uses a balloon-tipped catheter to enlarge a narrowed artery. In 2011, 1,942 adverse event reports related to the use of PTCA catheters were submitted to the FDA by the manufacturers, an increase from the 883 reported in 2008. The primary research objective is to conduct a systematic review of the published and grey literature published between 2007 and 2012 for the frequency of incidents, adverse events and malfunctions associated with the use of PTCA catheters in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Grey literature has not been commercially published.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed for medical literature on PMS for PTCA catheters in patients with CAD published between January 2007 and July 2012. We also searched the grey literature.

RESULTS

This review included 11 studies. The in-hospital adverse events reported were individual cases of myocardial infarction and hematoma. In studies of patients with coronary perforation, more patients with balloon angioplasty were identified compared with patients who required stenting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review illustrates that the volume and quality of PMS studies associated with the use of PTCA catheters in patients with CAD are low in the published and grey literature, and may not be useful sources of information for decisions on safety. In most studies, the objectives were not to monitor the long-term safety of the use of PTCA catheters in clinical practice. Future studies can explore the strengths and limitations of PMS databases administered by regulatory authorities.

Treatment of sirolimus-eluting stent restenosis: additional stent, balloon angioplasty, and coronary artery bypass graft

OBJECTIVE

Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) has shown a significant efficacy in reducing restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions. However, an increase in total number of SES use along with targeting more complex lesions generated a large number of SES restenosis. This study aimed to investigate the clinical and angiographic outcomes of different revascularization strategies for SES restenosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 176 lesions in 149 patients were included in the study. Fifteen patients underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG group) and the remaining patients were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Stent reimplantation was performed in 88 patients (Stent group), whereas 46 patients received balloon therapy (Balloon group). Among 176 lesions, major cardiac adverse event (MACE) occurred in 41 lesions (23.3%) during a median follow-up of 310 days (interquartile range: 146-517 days). The Kaplan-Meier method with a log-rank test revealed no significant difference in MACE rates between the three groups (6%, 25%, 26%, p = 0.13; CABG group, Stent group, Balloon group, respectively). However, when the Balloon group and Stent group were combined together as a PCI group, PCI group had a significantly higher rate of MACE compared with the CABG group (p = 0.04). In addition, angiographic restenosis was significantly less prevalent in the CABG group when compared with the other two groups (8%, 57%, 46%, p = 0.006; CABG group, Stent group, Balloon group, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

CABG surgery for patients with SES restenosis is associated with the better clinical outcomes as well as better angiographic outcomes when compared with that of PCI.

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.

Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of in-stent restenosis occurring within bare-metal stent and drug-eluting stent

OBJECTIVE

Although drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is the primary treatment modality for bare-metal stent (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR), little is known about the efficacy and safety profile of DES in the treatment of DES-ISR. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes following DES treatment for BMS-ISR and DES-ISR.

METHODS

Rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were compared in 97 consecutive patients who underwent DES implantation for the treatment of ISR (56 BMS-ISR and 41 DES-ISR) from January 2004 to December 2008.

RESULTS

Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were comparable, except that the DES used in the BMS-ISR group was longer and had a larger diameter. The length of follow-up was (28.60+/-1.96) and (20.34+/-1.54) months for the BMS-ISR and DES-ISR groups, respectively. One patient (1.8%) experienced non-cardiac mortality and one (1.8%) had target-vessel revascularization (TVR) in the BMS-ISR group. In the DES-ISR group, three patients (7.3%) died of sudden death with a documented acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and three suffered TVR (7.3%). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that cumulative survival probability and MACE-free probability were both significantly lower for the DES-ISR group (log rank test P=0.047 and P=0.005, respectively). In Cox regression analysis, DES-ISR remained an independent predictor for future MACE occurrence after adjustment for other factors (compared with BMS-ISR, risk ratio (RR)=8.743, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54-49.54, P=0.014). Switching to a different type of DES to treat DES-ISR did not improve the prognosis.

CONCLUSION

DES-ISR patients had a poorer prognosis than BMS-ISR patients after DES therapy.