Long-term outcomes after treatment of in-stent restenosis using the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold

Background

Early studies evaluating the performance of bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) Absorb in in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions indicated promising short-term to mid-term outcomes.

Aims

To evaluate long-term outcomes (up to 5 years) of patients with ISR treated with the Absorb BRS.

Methods

We did an observational analysis of long-term outcomes of patients treated for ISR using the Absorb BRS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California, USA) between 2013 and 2016 at the Heart Centre Luzern. The main outcomes included a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE), defined as composite of cardiac death, target vessel (TV) myocardial infarction and TV revascularisation, target lesion revascularisation and scaffold thrombosis (ScT).

Results

Overall, 118 ISR lesions were treated using totally 131 BRS among 89 patients and 31 (35%) presented with an acute coronary syndrome. The median follow-up time was 66.3 (IQR 52.3–77) months. A DOCE had occurred in 17% at 1 year, 27% at 2 years and 40% at 5 years of all patients treated for ISR using Absorb. ScTs were observed in six (8.4%) of the cohort at 5 years.

Conclusions

Treatment of ISR using the everolimus-eluting BRS Absorb resulted in high rates of DOCE at 5 years. Interestingly, while event rates were low in the first year, there was a massive increase of DOCE between 1 and 5 years after scaffold implantation. With respect to its complexity, involving also a more unpredictable vascular healing process, current and future BRS should be used very restrictively for the treatment of ISR.

A randomized comparison of a novel iopromide-based paclitaxel-coated balloon Shenqi versus SeQuent Please for the treatment of in-stent restenosis

BACKGROUND

Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains challenging in contemporary clinical applications. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty offers an effective treatment for ISR. Shenqi is a novel iopromide-based paclitaxel-coated balloon and its clinical safety, effectiveness and angiographic efficacy in patients with ISR have not been investigated.

METHODS

A total of 216 subjects with the first occurrence of ISR at 11 investigational sites in China were randomly allocated in a 1:1 fashion to treatment with DCB SeQuent Please or Shenqi. Clinical follow-up was planned at 1, 6, 9 and 12 months, and angiographic follow-up was planned at 9 months. The study was powered for the primary endpoint of 9-month in-segment late loss.

RESULTS

At 9-month follow-up, the in-segment late loss was 0.29 ± 0.43 mm with Shenqi versus 0.30 ± 0.46 mm with SeQuent Please, and the one-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was 0.14 mm, achieving noninferiority of Shenqi compared with SeQuent Please (P = 0.002). In total, 12 patients developed target lesion failure (TLF) in the Shenqi group compared with 16 patients in the SeQuent Please group (10.91% versus 15.09%; P = 0.42) within 1 year. TLF was mainly driven by target lesion revascularization (9.09%) followed by target vessel-related myocardial infarction (1.82%) and cardiovascular death (0.91%) in the Shenqi group.

CONCLUSIONS

Shenqi DCB was noninferior to SeQuent Please DCB for the primary endpoint of 9-month in-segment late loss. Shenqi DCB may become an attractive alternative treatment for patients with coronary ISR, withholding the need for additional stent implantation.

Drug-coated balloon angioplasty: predicting outcomes based on different patterns of drug-eluting stent restenosis

Although drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty is an effective therapy for drug-eluting stent- in stent restenosis (DES-ISR) after coronary stenting, recurrent ISR after DCB angioplasty still occurs. Different patterns of DES-ISR responding to DCB are largely unknown. This study sought to assess outcomes of different patterns of DES-ISR treated with DCB. From December 2014 to December 2016, a total of 160 DES-ISR lesions treated with DCB were retrospectively evaluated. Restenosis patterns were classified into two groups according to Mehran classification: focal, defined as < 10 mm, 58 lesions (36.3%); non-focal, which were diffuse, proliferative, or obstructive, 102 lesions (63.7%). The primary endpoint was binary restenosis rate at 9-month angiographic follow-up. Secondary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 24-month follow-up. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Angiographic follow-up rate was 93.7% (93.1% in the focal group and 94.1% in the non-focal group). The focal group had a lower recurrent restenosis rate compared to the non-focal group (3.7% vs. 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.003) at an average angiographic follow-up of 10 (10.4 ± 6.2) months. There was no difference in MACE between the two groups (6.9% vs. 11.8%, respectively; P = 0.70) at (22.7 ± 9.1) months clinical follow-up. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, focal pattern (OR 13.033; 95% CI 2.441-69.573, P = 0.003) and post-procedure DS% (OR 1.142; 95% CI 1.070-1.218, P = 0.000) were predictive factors of binary restenosis after DCB angioplasty. On multivariate analysis, focal pattern of ISR was a predictive factor of MACE (OR 0.260; 95% CI 0.071-0.959, P = 0.043), and diabetes mellitus (DM) was an independent predictor of MACE after DCB angioplasty (OR 5.045; 95% CI 1.179-21.590, P = 0.029). The present study suggests that DCB provides much better clinical, angiographic outcomes in patients with focal DES-ISR than non-focal DES-ISR.

Comparison of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis: A randomized RESTORE trial

BACKGROUND

This study sought to evaluate the optimal treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DESs).

METHODS

This is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized study comparing the use of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation everolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of DES ISR. The primary end point was in-segment late loss at 9-month routine angiographic follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were enrolled, and 74 (43.0%) patients underwent the angiographic follow-up. The primary end point was not different between the 2 treatment groups (DEB group 0.15±0.49 mm vs DES group 0.19±0.41 mm, P=.54). The secondary end points of in-segment minimal luminal diameter (MLD) (1.80±0.69 mm vs 2.09±0.46 mm, P=.03), in-stent MLD (1.90±0.71 mm vs 2.29±0.48 mm, P=.005), in-segment percent diameter stenosis (34%±21% vs 26%±15%, P=.05), and in-stent percent diameter stenosis (33%±21% vs 21%±15%, P=.002) were more favorable in the DES group. The composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 1 year was comparable between the 2 groups (DEB group 7.0% vs DES group 4.7%, P=.51).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of DES ISR using DEB or second-generation DES did not differ in terms of late loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up, whereas DES showed better angiographic results regarding minimal MLD and percent diameter stenosis. Both treatment strategies were safe and effective up to 1year after the procedure.

A novel approach to treat in-stent restenosis: 6- and 12-month results using the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold

AIMS

The treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains challenging. Small case series have described successful utilisation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) (Absorb; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) to treat ISR. We report our experience with this novel approach.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with ISR in native coronary arteries undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR were treated using BVS. A total of 84 ISR lesions were treated in 65 patients. The mean age was 66±11 years, 28% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and 28% were diabetic. PCI was successful in all patients and all scaffolds were delivered and deployed successfully in the target lesion. All 65 patients had six-month follow-up and 49 patients had 12-month clinical follow-up. The target lesion revascularisation (TLR) rate was 3.1% at six months and 12.2% at 12 months. The mean duration from PCI to TLR was 301±148 days. No scaffold thrombosis occurred during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

This proof of concept study demonstrates that ISR treatment utilising BVS is feasible and appears to have acceptable target lesion failure rates. Prospective randomised trials are necessary to assess whether BVS are more effective than drug-eluting stents or drug-eluting balloons to treat ISR.

Efficacy of various percutaneous interventions for in-stent restenosis: comprehensive network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a difficult problem in interventional cardiology. The relative efficacy and safety of available interventions is not clear. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis using both direct evidence and indirect evidence to compare all available interventions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically searched electronic databases for randomized trials comparing ≥2 treatments for ISR. A network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian approach. Eleven treatments were compared in 31 studies with 8157 patient-years follow-up. Compared with balloon angioplasty, everolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio [95% credibility interval], 0.13 [0.048-0.35]), paclitaxel-eluting balloon (0.32 [0.20-0.49]), paclitaxel-eluting cutting balloon (0.054 [0.0017-0.5]), paclitaxel-eluting stent (0.39 [0.24-0.62]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.32 [0.18-0.50]) are associated with lower target vessel revascularization. Balloon angioplasty is not different from cutting balloon (0.73 [0.31-1.5]), excimer laser (0.89 [0.29-2.7]), rotational atherectomy (0.96 [0.53-1.7]), and vascular brachytherapy (0.60 [0.35-1.0]). In drug-eluting stent ISR, balloon angioplasty was inferior to everolimus-eluting stent (0.19 [0.049-0.76]), paclitaxel-eluting balloon (0.43 [0.18-0.80]), paclitaxel-eluting stent (0.35 [0.13-0.76]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.36 [0.11-0.86]) for target vessel revascularization. There was no difference between treatments in probable or definitive stent thrombosis. The results of binary restenosis and target lesion revascularization were similar. Paclitaxel-eluting cutting balloon, everolimus-eluting stent, and paclitaxel-eluting balloon have the highest probability of being in the top 3 treatments based on low target lesion revascularization, but there was no statistical significant difference between them.

CONCLUSIONS

Balloon angioplasty is inferior to all drug-eluting treatments for ISR, including drug-eluting stent ISR. Drug-eluting stent, particularly everolimus-eluting stent, or paclitaxel-eluting cutting balloon and paclitaxel-eluting balloon should be preferred for treating ISR.