Optimally deployed stents in the treatment of restenotic versus de novo lesions

Predictors of Long-Term Major Adverse Cardiac Events and Clinical Restenosis following Elective Percutaneous Coronary Stenting

Limited data exist regarding the predictors of long-term clinical outcomes following elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the current era of stenting. The authors investigated the predictors of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and clinical restenosis in 740 consecutive patients who underwent successful elective PCI with bare metal stents (BMSs) or drug-eluting stents (DESs). At 30-month follow -up, compared with BMS recipients, DES recipients had a significantly lower rate of MACE, which was mainly driven by a decreased repeat target vessel PCI. The rate of 30-month clinical restenosis was significantly lower in DES recipients. The authors conclude that baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics determine long-term MACE and clinical restenosis after elective PCI, with DES being the independent predictor for both.

Determinants of model of renarrowing after beta radiation for in-stent restenosis

It is unknown whether model of renarrowing after beta-radiation for in-stent restenosis (ISR) is influenced by the type of geographic miss (GM).

METHODS

In 166 ISR treated with Galileo, serial quantitative coronary angiographic analysis was done. Minimal lumen diameters and lengths were measured for (1) stent, (2) peri-stent subsegments subjected to angioplasty with/without irradiation, and (3) irradiation margins. GM was defined as: (Type 1) edge injury within the 32P source dose fall-off: 2.0 mm inside and outside the source end marker or (Type 2) overt, nonirradiated injury: beyond the outer 2.0-mm long dose fall-off zone.

RESULTS

Restenosis rate was 28.3% at 8.9+/-4.5 months with 60% located exclusively outside the stent. Type 1 GM was present in 24.7% of proximal edges, whereas Type 2 in 18.1%. Respective percentages for distal edges were 23.5% and 15.7%. Regardless of presence and type of GM, significant late lumen loss occurred only outside the stent. However, the biggest late lumen loss at the proximal edge was induced by the Type 1 GM (0.65+/-0.79, p<0.001), while proximal Type 2 GM was not associated with edge renarrowing (-0.04+/-0.48, p=NS). Both reference lumen diameter and proximal Type 1 GM influenced restenosis independently (OR 0.47; 95%CI 0.24-0.90; p=0.023 and OR 2.46; 95%CI 1.12-5.40; p=0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of presence and type of geographic miss, late lumen loss after beta-radiation occurs only outside the stent. However, injury within the proximal 32P dose fall-off but not overt edge injury is associated with the biggest late lumen loss at the respective edge, triggering recurrent restenosis.

Outcome of patients with prior percutaneous revascularization undergoing repeat coronary intervention (from the PRESTO Trial)

Patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are often excluded from clinical trials. As a result, limited data are available on the long-term outcome of such patients undergoing repeat PCI. In this study, we assessed the impact of previous PCI on outcomes in patients undergoing repeat PCI. We compared the baseline features and outcomes of 7,056 patients without previous PCI (group I) with those of 1,281 patients with previous PCI of the original target lesion (group II) and 1,408 patients with previous PCI of a nontarget lesion (group III) undergoing PCI in the Prevention of Restenosis with Tranilast and its Outcomes (PRESTO) trial. Compared with patients in group I, patients in groups II and III were more likely to have diabetes (25% and 24% vs 21%, p <0.02), previous myocardial infarction (51% and 56% vs 29%, p <0.001), and ostial lesions (10% and 7% vs 5%, p <0.001), and less likely to have, as their indication for PCI, myocardial infarction (2% and 7% vs 17%, p <0.001). At 1 month, major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, were low and similar in all 3 groups. Compared with patients in group I, the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 9 months was significantly increased for patients in groups II (34.1% vs 18.6%, relative risk [RR] 2.03, adjusted RR 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.58 to 2.01) and III (23.9% vs 18.6%, RR 1.30, adjusted RR 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.33). The increased risk of major adverse cardiac events was entirely due to higher rates of repeat revascularization. In conclusion, despite similar short-term outcomes, patients with previous PCI undergoing PCI of either target or nontarget lesions had lower event-free survival at 9 months of follow-up.

One-year outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention for stable and unstable angina pectoris with or without application of general usage of stents in unselected European patient groups

The outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of all patients treated for stable and unstable angina pectoris from July 1992 to June 1993 (group A [n = 590], of whom 3.7% received stents) was compared with the outcome in patients treated from July 1996 to June 1997 (group B [n = 768], of whom 64.7% received stents). All patients were followed up for at least 1 year. PCI was performed due to unstable angina in 34.1% and 33.5% of patients in groups A and B, respectively. More patients in group B than in group A had systemic hypertension, previous coronary artery bypass grafting, and PCI. Within 1 year, 42.2% of patients in group A versus 27.2% in group B (p <0.001) either died, had a nonfatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or underwent a new revascularization procedure. The difference between the groups persisted after correction for differences in baseline characteristics. No difference was seen in the subgroup that had previously undergone PCI. Mortality (2.0% vs 1.4%, p = NS) and the composite of death plus AMI (6.6% vs 6.1%, p = NS) was similar in groups A and B. The diagnoses of unstable angina and systemic hypertension at the time of the procedure were also predictors of adverse outcome. Thus, in a cohort of patients treated after the general acceptance of stenting, the composite of death, AMI, and/or revascularization procedures was significantly less than that in the cohort treated before this increase in stenting. However, this did not result in a reduced frequency of death or AMI.