Predictive Factors of Re-restenosis after Repeated Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for SES Restenosis and Clinical Outcomes after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for SES Restenosis

A predictive model involving serum uric acid, C-reactive protein, diabetes, hypercholesteremia, multiple lesions for restenosis risk in everolimus-eluting stent-treated coronary heart disease patients

Purpose

As a second-generation drug-eluting stent, the restenosis risk factors of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) lack sufficient evidence. Therefore, the study investigated the in-stent restenosis occurrence and its predictive factors among patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with EES.

Materials and methods

Totally, 235 patients with CHD who underwent PCI with EES were included. At 1 year post PCI with EES (or earlier if clinically indicated), coronary angiography was performed to evaluate the in-stent restenosis status.

Results

Within 1 year post-operation, 20 patients developed in-stent restenosis while 215 patients did not develop in-stent restenosis, resulting in a 1-year in-stent restenosis rate of 8.5%. Diabetes mellitus, hypercholesteremia, hyperuricemia, fasting blood glucose, serum uric acid (SUA), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (HsCRP), target lesions in the left circumflex artery, patients with two target lesions, length of target lesions and length of stent positively correlated with in-stent restenosis risk, while high-density lipoprotein cholesterol negatively associated with in-stent restenosis risk. Notably, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesteremia, SUA, HsCRP levels, and patients with two target lesions were independent predictive factors for in-stent restenosis risk by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Then, the in-stent restenosis risk prediction model was established based on these independent predictive factors, which exhibited an excellent value in predicting in-stent restenosis risk (area under the curve: 0.863; 95% CI: 0.779–0.848) by receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Conclusion

In-stent restenosis risk prediction model, consisting of diabetes mellitus, hypercholesteremia, SUA, HsCRP, and patients with two target lesions, may predict in-stent restenosis risk in patients with CHD who underwent post-PCI with EES.

Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass after percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) with the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) provides excellent long-term results for isolated left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) disease. We tried to evaluate the impact of the previous percutaneous coronary intervention (p-PCI) for LAD on the clinical outcomes of MIDCAB in this study.

METHODS

A total of 197 patients with isolated LAD disease underwent MIDCAB in our center from February 2009 to May 2020. 51 patients had the p-PCI for LAD and 146 patients did not. The primary outcome was the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE).

RESULTS

The incidences of the perioperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups (p > .05). The median follow-up time was 48.0 months (interquartile range, 25.9-85.5 months). The incidences of MACE (p < .001) and myocardial infarction or recurrent angina (p < .001) were significantly higher in the p-PCI group than those in the non-PCI group. The estimated 5-year freedom from MACE in the p-PCI group was significantly lower (56.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.2%-71.0% vs. 83.4%, 95% CI: 76.7%-90.1%, p < .001). The previous LAD-PCI (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.664, 95% CI: 1.471-4.822, p = .001) and the history of peripheral arterial disease (HR: 3.145, 95% CI: 1.085-9.113, p = .035) were the independent predictors of MACE. The p-PCI group had a higher diseased graft rate than the non-PCI group (10.9% vs. 2.3%, p = .046).

CONCLUSIONS

The previous LAD-PCI may deteriorate the outcomes of MIDCAB in patients with isolated LAD disease.

Occurrence and predictive factors of restenosis in coronary heart disease patients underwent sirolimus-eluting stent implantation

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the occurrence and predictive factors of restenosis in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES).

METHODS

Demographic data, clinical features, and laboratory tests of 398 CHD patients underwent PCI with SES were retrospectively reviewed. Coronary angiography was performed to evaluate coronary stenosis before PCI and in-stent restenosis at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 37 (9.3%) patients suffered restenosis, but 361 (90.7%) patients did not develop restenosis at 1-year follow-up. Demographic characteristic (age), cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension and hyperuricemia), biochemical indexes (fasting blood-glucose, total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (HsCRP)), cardiac function index (cardiac troponin I), lesion features (multivessel artery lesions, target lesion at left circumflex artery (LCX), two target lesions and length of target lesion), and operation procedure (length of stent) were correlated with higher restenosis risk. Moreover, age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, LDL-C, HsCRP, and target lesion at LCX were independent predictive factors for raised restenosis risk. Based on these independent predictive factors, we established a restenosis risk prediction model, and receiver-operating characteristic curves displayed that this model exhibited an excellent predictive value for higher restenosis risk (areas under the curve 0.953 (95% CI 0.926-0.981)).

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide a new insight into the prediction for restenosis in CHD patients underwent PCI with SES.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold for coronary in-stent restenosis: a novel concept

The management of patients with significant in-stent restenosis (ISR) with drug-eluting stent is still not well defined. Various treatment modalities include plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), metallic stent, cutting or scoring balloon and drug-eluting balloon (DEB). Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is the latest technology for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions. The use of BVS in ISR is based on the rationale of local drug delivery as achieved by DEB without the permanent bi-layer of metal and also stabilizes dissection flaps and prevents acute recoil as provided by metallic stent. To the best of our knowledge this is the first case report of the use of BVS in patient with ISR.

In-stent restenosis of drug-eluting stents

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have emerged as an improved alternative to bare-metal stents by demonstrating reduced rates of restenosis and target lesion revascularization. This emergence has led to the unrestricted use of DES for various indications and lesions, and subsequently revealed DES in-stent restenosis as a novel interventional therapeutic dilemma. Recent insights regarding the patho-physiological processes and therapeutic alternatives have added to the accumulated knowledge regarding the appropriate approach to this phenomenon. This review aims to detail the mechanism and clinical presentation of, and therapeutic strategies for, the treatment of DES in in-stent restenosis.

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.

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.

In-stent restenosis in the drug-eluting stent era

The introduction of the drug-eluting stent (DES) proved to be an important step forward in reducing rates of restenosis and target lesion revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the rapid implementation of DES in standard practice and expansion of the indications for percutaneous coronary intervention to high-risk patients and complex lesions also introduced a new problem: DES in-stent restenosis (ISR), which occurs in 3% to 20% of patients, depending on patient and lesion characteristics and DES type. The clinical presentation of DES ISR is usually recurrent angina, but some patients present with acute coronary syndrome. Mechanisms of DES ISR can be biological, mechanical, and technical, and its pattern is predominantly focal. Intravascular imaging can assist in defining the mechanism and selecting treatment modalities. Based upon the current available evidence, an algorithm for the treatment approaches to DES restenosis is proposed.

Repeated sirolimus-eluting stent implantation to treat sirolimus-eluting stent and bare-metal stent restenosis

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a persistent, unresolved issue even in the era of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents. The present study compares the clinical and angiographic outcomes of using sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for re-intervention against ISR that was originally treated with sirolimus-eluting or bare-metal (BMS) stents.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This prospective single-center registry investigated 179 ISR lesions in 158 consecutive patients (53 lesions in 49, and 126 in 109 patients originally treated with SES and BMS, respectively), who had undergone re-intervention with SES. The patients were clinically and angiographically followed up at 8 months after re-PCI. The incidence of re-restenosis (29 vs 12%, P<0.01), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR; 21 vs 8%, P<0.05) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; 21 vs 9%, P<0.05) were significantly greater in ISR lesions originally treated with SES than in those originally treated with BMS at 8 months after re-PCI. Moreover, late luminal loss was significantly greater in the group with post-SES restenosis (P<0.05). Even after adjustment, post-SES restenosis was the only independent predictor of re-restenosis and MACE (P<0.05, each).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the re-restenosis rate is acceptable, the incidence rates of late restenosis, ischemia-driven TLR and MACE are higher after repeated SES implantation to treat SES, than BMS restenosis. These results might affect the mid-term clinical outcomes of re-intervention with SES.