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.

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.