Two-year clinical follow-up of 90Sr/90 Y beta-radiation versus placebo control for the treatment of in-stent restenosis

Comparative efficacy of interventional therapies and devices for coronary in-stent restenosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

In-stent restenosis (ISR) has become a significant obstacle to interventional therapy for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for patients with coronary ISR remains controversial. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was aimed to compare and estimate the effectiveness of different PCI strategies and commercial devices for the treatment of patients with coronary ISR.

Methods

In present study, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from database inception to October 20, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials. We included studies comparing various PCI strategies for the treatment of any type of coronary ISR. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42022364308.

Results

We included 44 eligible trials including 8479 patients, 39 trials comparing the treatment effects of 10 PCIs, and 5 trials comparing the efficacy between different types of drug-eluting stent (DES) or drug-coated balloon (DCB) devices. Among the PCIs, everolimus-eluting stent was the optimal strategy considering target lesion revascularization (TLR), percent diameter stenosis (%DS), and binary restenosis (BR), and sirolimus-coated balloon was the optimal strategy considering late lumen loss (LLL). In the comparison of commercial devices, the combination strategy excimer laser coronary angioplasty plus SeQuent Please paclitaxel-coated balloon showed promising therapeutic prospects.

Conclusions

DCB and DES remain the preferred treatment strategies for coronary ISR, considering both the primary clinical outcome (TLR) and the angiographic outcomes (LLL, BR, %DS). Personalized combination interventions including DCB or DES hold promise as a novel potential treatment pattern for coronary ISR.

Percutaneous coronary interventional strategies for treatment of in-stent restenosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents is the standard of care for treatment of native coronary artery stenoses, but optimum treatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) have not been established. We aimed to compare and rank percutaneous treatment strategies for ISR.

METHODS

We did a network meta-analysis to synthesise both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for randomised controlled trials published up to Oct 31, 2014, of different PCI strategies for treatment of any type of coronary ISR. The primary outcome was percent diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014191.

FINDINGS

We deemed 27 trials eligible, including 5923 patients, with follow-up ranging from 6 months to 60 months after the index intervention. Angiographic follow-up was available for 4975 (84%) of 5923 patients 6-12 months after the intervention. PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was the most effective treatment for percent diameter stenosis, with a difference of -9·0% (95% CI -15·8 to -2·2) versus drug-coated balloons (DCB), -9·4% (-17·4 to -1·4) versus sirolimus-eluting stents, -10·2% (-18·4 to -2·0) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents, -19·2% (-28·2 to -10·4) versus vascular brachytherapy, -23·4% (-36·2 to -10·8) versus bare metal stents, -24·2% (-32·2 to -16·4) versus balloon angioplasty, and -31·8% (-44·8 to -18·6) versus rotablation. DCB were ranked as the second most effective treatment, but without significant differences from sirolimus-eluting (-0·2% [95% CI -6·2 to 5·6]) or paclitaxel-eluting (-1·2% [-6·4 to 4·2]) stents.

INTERPRETATION

These findings suggest that two strategies should be considered for treatment of any type of coronary ISR: PCI with everolimus-eluting stents because of the best angiographic and clinical outcomes, and DCB because of its ability to provide favourable results without adding a new stent layer.

FUNDING

None.

Late results (>10 years) of intracoronary beta brachytherapy for diffuse in-stent restenosis

INTRODUCTION

Until the development of drug-eluting stents (DES), diffuse in-stent restenosis (ISR) was the main limitation of bare-metal stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Among the different treatments available, intracoronary brachytherapy (BT) emerged as one of the most promising, although it was almost abandoned with the increasing use of DES.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the Portuguese experience with 90Sr/90Y beta brachytherapy for the treatment of diffuse ISR regarding long-term (>10 years) major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and angiographic restenosis.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective, observational study included 12 consecutive patients treated between January and June 2001, mean age 58.6±9.9 years (range 43-77 years), 11 male. All had chronic stable angina, 75% had dyslipidemia, 58% had hypertension, 50% had peripheral arterial disease, 42% had diabetes and 50% had multivessel disease. Recurrent ISR was present in half of the patients and 11 had normal left ventricular function. After balloon dilatation, BT was performed using an Sr90/Y90 (Novoste Beta-CathTM) beta radiation source. All patients remained under dual antiplatelet therapy until scheduled nine-month follow-up angiography. Patients were followed for the occurrence of death (all-cause and cardiovascular), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, stent thrombosis and angiographic restenosis. MACE were defined as the combined incidence of cardiac death, MI and urgent target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

In all cases there was both clinical and angiographic success. In a mean follow-up of 10.9±2.5 years, 19 events occurred in seven patients: death in three (25%), only one cardiac (8.3%); ST-elevation MI in one (related to a non-target vessel) (8.3%); and 15 revascularizations in five (42%), of which nine were of the target vessel (mainly in the first two years). There was only one case of probable stent thrombosis. Angiographic restenosis at nine months was 27% (three out of 11 patients), of which two were total occlusions. Ten-year MACE-free survival was 42% (5 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Intracoronary beta brachytherapy for the treatment of diffuse ISR in this small cohort of patients proved to be safe and efficacious, with no late adverse events related to intracoronary radiation.

A dual-inhibition study on vascular smooth muscle cells with meclofenamic acid and β-irradiation for the prevention of restenosis

PURPOSE

Restenosis is still one of the major limitations after angioplasty. A therapeutic treatment combining β-irradiation and pharmacologic cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition was employed to study the impact on vascular smooth muscle cells (SMCs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The effects of meclofenamic acid in combination with yttrium-90 ((90)Y) on cell growth, clonogenic activity, cell migration, and cell cycle distribution of human aortic SMCs were investigated. Treatment was sustained over a period of 4 days and recovery of cells was determined until day 20 after initiation. The hypothesis was that there is no difference between control and treated groups.

RESULTS

A dose-dependent growth inhibition was observed in single and combined treatment groups for meclofenamic acid and β-irradiation. Cumulative radiation dosage of 8 Gy completely inhibited colony formation. This was also observed for 200 μM meclofenamic acid alone or in combination with minor β-irradiation dosages. Results of the migration tests showed also a dose dependency with additive effects of combined therapy. Meclofenamic acid 200 μM alone and with cumulative β-irradiation dosages resulted in an increased G2/M-phase share.

CONCLUSIONS

Incubating human SMCs with meclofenamic acid and (90)Y for a period of 4 d (ie, 1.5 half-life times) resulted in an effective inhibition of smooth muscle cell proliferation, colony formation, and migration.

Two year follow-up after treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter

BACKGROUND

We are presenting an extension of a previously published trial on the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-coated balloon in coronary ISR in a larger patient population and after a complete follow-up of 2 years.

METHODS

Hundred eight patients were enrolled in two separately randomized, double-blind multicenter trials on efficacy and safety using an identical protocol. Patients were treated by the paclitaxel-coated (3 microg/mm(2) balloon surface; Paccocath) or an uncoated balloon. The main inclusion criteria were a diameter stenosis of >or=70% and <30 mm length with a vessel diameter of 2.5-3.5 mm. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss in-segment. Secondary endpoints included binary restenosis rate and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

RESULTS

Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. After six months in-segment late lumen loss was 0.81 +/- 0.79 mm in the uncoated balloon group vs. 0.11 +/- 0.45 mm (P < 0.001) in the drug-coated balloon group resulting in a binary restenosis rate of 25/49 vs. 3/47 (P < 0.001). Until 12 months post procedure 20 patients in the uncoated balloon group compared to two patients in the coated balloon group required target lesion revascularization (P = 0.001). Between 12 and 24 only two MACE were recorded, a stroke in the uncoated and a target lesion revascularization in the coated balloon group.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of coronary ISR with paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters persistently reduces repeat restenosis up to 2 years. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00106587, NCT00409981).

A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing drug-eluting stents and vascular brachytherapy in the treatment of coronary artery in-stent restenosis

OBJECTIVE

We undertook a meta-analysis of randomised trials assessing the outcome of vascular brachytherapy (VBT) or DES for the treatment of coronary artery ISR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Studies utilising DES or VBT for ISR were identified by a systematic search. Data was pooled and combined overall effect measures were calculated for a random effect model in terms of deaths, myocardial infarctions, revascularisation, binary restenosis, mean late luminal loss and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Fourteen eligible studies (3103 patients) were included. Neither therapy had any effect on mortality or myocardial infarction rate. VBT reduced the rate of revascularisation (RR 0.59, 95%CI 0.50-0.68), MACE (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.51-0.67), binary restenosis (RR 0.51, 95%CI 0.44-0.59) and late loss (-0.73 mm, 95%CI -0.91 to -0.55 mm) compared to balloon angioplasty and selective bare metal stents (BMS) alone at intermediate follow-up and MACE (RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.61-0.85) at long-term follow-up. DES reduced the rate of revascularisation (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.71), MACE (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39-0.79) and binary restenosis (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.81) compared to VBT but follow-up was limited to 9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

VBT improves the long-term outcome of angioplasty compared with BMS alone in the treatment of ISR. DES appears to provide similar results to that of VBT during short-term follow-up.

Four-year results after brachytherapy for diffuse coronary in-stent restenosis: will coronary radiation therapy survive?

BACKGROUND

Prior to the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), diffuse coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) was mainly treated by brachytherapy (BT), with good short-term and mid-term results. However, there exist limited data on the long-term effects of BT that justify its continuous use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred patients with diffuse ISR treated with intravascular BT were retrospectively followed over 4 years. Group A (n=134) was treated with the noncentered (90)Sr/Y BetaCath radiation system, whereas Group B (n=66) was treated with the centered 32P Galileo source wire system. Primary endpoints after 4 years were target lesion restenosis (TLS) and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary endpoints were target vessel revascularization (TVR) and nontarget vessel revascularization (NTVR), as well as major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

RESULTS

Follow-up at 4 years yielded a TLS rate of 37.6% (Group A, 40.8%; Group B, 31.1%; P=.48). TLR was performed in 34.8% of patients (37.5% in Group A vs. 29.5% in Group B; P=.55). Ten percent of patients underwent coronary bypass surgery. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed more often in Group A (27.5%) than in Group B (19.7%), while TVR was less frequent in Group A (10.0%) than in Group B (18.0%). NTVR was undertaken in 25.0% of Group A patients versus 21.3% of Group B patients, and MACE occurred in 1.7% of Group A patients versus 3.3% of Group B patients. These differences were not statistically significant (P>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

While excellent short-term and mid-term results after coronary BT are widely accepted, a high TLS rate can be observed after 4 years. The potential superiority of DES to BT will depend on the availability of long-term clinical data.

Three-year clinical follow-up after strontium-90/yttrium-90 beta-irradiation for the treatment of in-stent coronary restenosis

Because late vessel failure has been speculated as a possible limitation of vascular brachytherapy, we conducted a prospective clinical evaluation at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months of follow-up after irradiation with strontium-90/yttrium-90 for in-stent restenosis, regardless of the patient's symptomatic status. We report complete 3-year follow-up data for 106 consecutive patients. The cumulative rate of death at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 0.9%, 0.9%, 0.9%, and 1.9% respectively. The corresponding rates for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction were 2.8%, 4.7%, 4.7%, and 4.7%, respectively. The cumulative rate of late thrombotic occlusion at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 3.8%, 4.7%, 4.7%, and 4.7%, respectively. The corresponding rates of target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization were 8.5% and 12.3% (p = 0.046), 14.2% (p = 0.157) and 18.0% (p = 0.046), 12.3% and 18.9% (p = 0.008), and 21.7% (p = 0.083) and 29.2% (p = 0.005), respectively. The cumulative rate of all major adverse cardiovascular events at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 16.1%, 24.5% (p = 0.003), 27.4% (p = 0.083), and 35.8% (p = 0.003), respectively. In conclusion, these results indicate a delayed and, even in the third year after the index procedure, continued restenotic process after beta irradiation of in-stent restenotic lesions.

Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology

In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is recommended, if thrombolysis failed within 45-60 min after starting the administration. After successful thrombolysis, the use of routine coronary angiography within 24 h and PCI, if applicable, is recommended even in asymptomatic patients without demonstrable ischaemia to improve patients' outcome. If a PCI centre is not available within 24 h, patients who have received successful thrombolysis with evidence of spontaneous or inducible ischaemia before discharge should be referred to coronary angiography and revascularized accordingly--independent of 'maximal' medical therapy.