Clinical Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Balloon for In-Stent Restenosis Based on the Number of Metallic Layers

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon vs Uncoated Balloon for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: The AGENT IDE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Drug-coated balloons offer a potentially beneficial treatment strategy for the management of coronary in-stent restenosis. However, none have been previously evaluated or approved for use in coronary circulation in the United States.

Objective

To evaluate whether a paclitaxel-coated balloon is superior to an uncoated balloon in patients with in-stent restenosis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Design, Setting, and Participants

AGENT IDE, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, enrolled 600 patients with in-stent restenosis (lesion length <26 mm and reference vessel diameter >2.0 mm to ≤4.0 mm) at 40 centers across the United States between May 2021 and August 2022. One-year clinical follow-up was completed on October 2, 2023.

Interventions

Participants were randomized in a 2:1 allocation to undergo treatment with a paclitaxel-coated (n = 406) or an uncoated (n = 194) balloon.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point of 1-year target lesion failure-defined as the composite of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or cardiac death-was tested for superiority.

Results

Among 600 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 157 females [26.2%]; 42 Black [7%], 35 Hispanic [6%] individuals), 574 (95.7%) completed 1-year follow-up. The primary end point at 1 year occurred in 17.9% in the paclitaxel-coated balloon group vs 28.6% in the uncoated balloon group, meeting the criteria for superiority (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42-0.84]; 2-sided P = .003). Target lesion revascularization (13.0% vs 24.7%; HR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.34-0.74]; P = .001) and target vessel-related myocardial infarction (5.8% vs 11.1%; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.92]; P = .02) occurred less frequently among patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon. The rate of cardiac death was 2.9% vs 1.6% (HR, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.49-6.28]; P = .38) in the coated vs uncoated balloon groups, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients undergoing coronary angioplasty for in-stent restenosis, a paclitaxel-coated balloon was superior to an uncoated balloon with respect to the composite end point of target lesion failure. Paclitaxel-coated balloons are an effective treatment option for patients with coronary in-stent restenosis.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04647253.

Clinical Outcome of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for the Treatment of Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent In-Stent Chronic Total Occlusion

AIMS

In-stent chronic total occlusion (IS-CTO) represents a unique challenge for percutaneous coronary intervention. Whether the optimal treatment for IS-CTO is angioplasty with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) or repeat stenting with drug-eluting stents (DESs) is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical outcome of PCB angioplasty and DES repeat stenting for DES IS-CTO.

METHODS

We retrospectively included patients with DES IS-CTO who underwent successful PCB angioplasty or DES repeat stenting from January 2016 to December 2019. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Cox proportional hazards model was performed to compare the risk of MACEs between PCB angioplasty and DES repeat stenting, and to further explore the prognostic factors of patients with DES IS-CTO.

RESULTS

A total of 214 patients with DES IS-CTO were enrolled: 78 patients (36.4%) treated with PCB and 136 patients (63.6%) treated with DES respectively. The median follow-up was 1160 days, and MACEs were observed in 28.2% of patients with PCB angioplasty versus 26.5% of patients with DES repeat stenting (P = 0.784), mainly driven by TLR (21.8% vs. 19.9%, P = 0.735). There was no significant difference in the risk of MACEs between the PCB group and the DES group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-2.46, P = 0.512). Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that chronic kidney disease and ≥ 3 stent layers in the lesion were independent predictors of MACEs, while switching to another antiproliferative drug was an independent protective factor (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PCB angioplasty was an effective alternative treatment strategy for DES IS-CTO, which had similar long-term outcomes to DES repeat stenting in contemporary practice, but both were accompanied by a high rate of long-term MACEs. Improving the poor prognosis of patients with DES IS-CTO remains a challenge.

Comparison of Recurrent With First-Time In-Stent Restenosis

Recurrent in-stent restenosis (Re-ISR) remains a therapeutic challenge. We aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics, treatment, and long-term outcomes in patients with Re-ISR compared with those with first-time ISR (First-ISR). This retrospective study consecutively enrolled patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR in Fuwai Hospital between January 2017 and December 2018. Re-ISR was defined as a second event of ISR after a previous successful treatment of the ISR lesion. The primary outcome was defined as a composite of all-cause death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. A total of 2,006 patients (2,154 lesions) with ISR underwent successful PCI were enrolled and categorized into 2 groups: the Re-ISR group (246 patients/259 lesions) and the First-ISR group (1,760 patients/1,895 lesions). During a mean follow-up of 36 months, the primary outcomes occurred in 80 patients (32.5%) in the Re-ISR group and 349 patients (19.3%) in the First-ISR group (p <0.001 by log-rank test), major driven by spontaneous myocardial infarction (4.9% vs 2.7%, p = 0.049) and repeat revascularization (30.1% vs 16.5%, p <0.001). The multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that Re-ISR was independently associated with a higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio 1.88, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53, p <0.001) and repeated revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio 2.09, 95% confidence interval 1.53 to 2.84, p <0.001). The relation remained consistent after the propensity score analysis. In conclusion, in the present cohort of patients who underwent PCI for ISR, Re-ISR was significantly associated with a higher risk of long-term outcomes than First-ISR.

Utilization of Non-Drug-Eluting Devices for Inpatient Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States

There is a paucity of data on the contemporary use of non-drug-eluting devices (balloon angioplasty or bare-metal stents) in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States. We utilized the Nationwide Readmissions Database to identify patients hospitalized to undergo PCI with non-drug-eluting devices from 2016 to 2019. The main outcome of interest was the trends in utilization over the study years. Among 1,870,262 PCI procedures, 127,810 (6.8%) were performed with non-drug-eluting devices; 72% of these were in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (MI). The use of non-drug-eluting devices decreased throughout the study period from 12.9% of all PCI in the first quarter of 2016 to 3.4% in the last quarter of 2019 (p <0.001). Factors associated with their use included advanced age and high bleeding risk. Only a small percentage were used as a bridge to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (2%) and for treatment of in-stent restenosis (3%). The in-hospital mortality was 5.8% for the entire cohort and 6.6% when the indication for use was an acute MI. In patients presenting with an acute MI, reinfarction within 30 days was common and occurred in 18% of the patients. In conclusion, the use of non-drug-eluting devices in PCI in the United States decreased from 2016 to 2019. Factors associated with their use included old age and high bleeding risk. Due to suboptimal outcomes in patients currently being treated with non-drug-eluting devices, there remains an unmet clinical need for alternative treatment options.

Intravascular Imaging for Guiding In-Stent Restenosis and Stent Thrombosis Therapy

Advances in stent technology and the design of endovascular devices with thinner struts, anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic polymers, and better drug kinetics have enhanced the safety and efficacy of the second-generation drug-eluting stents and broadened their use in the therapy of high-risk patients and complex anatomies. However, despite these developments, in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis remain the Achilles' heel of percutaneous coronary intervention, with their cumulative incidence reaching up to 10% at 5 years following percutaneous coronary intervention. The treatment of stent failure poses challenges and is associated with a worse prognosis than conventional percutaneous coronary intervention. Several studies have recently highlighted the value of intravascular imaging in identifying causes of stent failure, underscored its role in treatment planning, and registries have shown that its use may be associated with better clinical outcomes. The present review aims to summarize the evidence in the field; it discusses the value of intravascular imaging in identifying the mechanisms of in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis in assessing the morphological characteristics of neointima tissue that appears to determine long-term outcomes in evaluating procedural results, and presents the findings of studies supporting its value in guiding therapy in stent failure.

In-Stent Restenosis

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a potential complication after percutaneous coronary intervention, even in the era of drug-eluting stents, and its treatment remains suboptimal. Neoatherosclerosis is an important component of the pathology of ISR and is accelerated in drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents. Coronary angiography is the gold standard for evaluating the morphology of ISR, although computed tomography angiography is emerging as an alternative noninvasive modality to evaluate the presence of ISR. Drug-coated balloons and stent reimplantation are the current mainstays of treatment for ISR, and the choice of treatment should be based on clinical background and lesion morphology.

Stent retriever thrombectomy in the treatment of basal artery stent thrombosis: Two case reports

RATIONALE

Stent thrombosis is a rare but serious complication that requires timely treatment. Catheter thrombectomy is the first-line therapy for this condition; however, it may be challenging for patients with in-stent emboli located in the basilar artery.

PATIENT CONCERNS

Herein, we reported 2 cases with stent thrombosis in the vertebrobasilar artery, including their imaging and clinical findings. Both patients were successfully treated with stent retriever thrombectomy.

DIAGNOSIS

The presence of cerebral infarction was diagnosed by magnetic resonance. Cranial computed tomography excluded cerebral hemorrhage, and basilar artery occlusion was considered in combination with the medical history.

INTERVENTIONS

After cerebral angiography confirmed basilar artery occlusion, the stent thrombectomy was used to remove the thrombus.

OUTCOMES

The emboli were removed from the stent, and the angiography confirmed that the blood flow in the posterior cerebral circulation was recovered to TICI level 3. Moreover, all symptoms disappeared.

LESSONS

Cerebral vascular stent thrombectomy is a feasible approach for treating cerebral vascular stent thrombosis.

Intravascular imaging in coronary stent restenosis: Prevention, characterization, and management

Despite the introduction of drug-eluting stents to combat the neointimal hyperplasia that occurred after BMS implantation, in-stent restenosis is still encountered in a significant number of patients, particularly as increasingly complex lesions are tackled by percutaneous coronary intervention. Many biological and mechanical factors interplay to produce restenosis, some of which are avoidable. Intravascular imaging provided unique insights into various forms of stent-related mechanical issues that contribute to this phenomenon. From a practical perspective, intravascular imaging can therefore help to optimize the stenting procedure to avert these issues. Moreover, once the problem of restenosis eventuates, imaging can guide the management by tackling the underlying identified mechanism. Finally, it can be used to evaluate the re-intervention results. Nevertheless, with the emergence of different treatment options, more evidence is needed to define patient/lesion-specific characteristics that may help to tailor treatment selection in a way that improves clinical outcomes.

Prognostic Value of High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein in In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Background: A risk assessment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) patients is critical for providing adequate treatment. Nevertheless, the prognostic value of high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP) levels on ISR has not been consistently demonstrated in clinical studies. In the current meta-analysis, we aim to assess the predictive role of hs-CRP in patients treated with stenting. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Registry through May 2022. We selected random control trials that compared the effects of different interventions, and that revealed the effects of hs-CRP. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the studies according to the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The data were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Nine articles were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 1.049 patients received stent implantation, and 185 ISR events were recorded during the 1–12-month follow-up period. Baseline hs-CRP levels were not associated with the prediction of ISR among patients receiving stent implantation. The OR of hs-CRP for ISR was 1.81 (0.92–2.69). In the subgroup analysis, 6–12-month hs-CRP levels, diabetes mellitus (DM), and age ≥60(years)were associated with a higher risk of ISR. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that higher levels of baseline hs-CRP are not associated with an increased risk of ISR in stented patients. However, an increased risk of ISR was associated with hs-CRP levels at 6 to 12 months of follow-up, which is higher in studies with diabetes mellitus patients and the elderly.

Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

The introduction and subsequent iterations of drug-eluting stent technologies have substantially improved the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary interventions. However, the incidence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and the resultant need for repeated revascularization still occur at a rate of 1%-2% per year. Given that millions of drug-eluting stents are implanted each year around the globe, ISR can be considered as a pathologic entity of public health significance. The mechanisms of ISR are multifactorial. Since the first description of the angiographic patterns of ISR, the advent of intracoronary imaging has further elucidated the mechanisms and patterns of ISR. The armamentarium and treatment strategies of ISR have also evolved over time. Currently, an individualized approach using intracoronary imaging to characterize the underlying substrate of ISR is recommended. In this paper, we comprehensively reviewed the incidence, mechanisms, and imaging characterization of ISR and propose a contemporary treatment algorithm.

Management of in-stent restenosis

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains the most common cause of stent failure after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent data suggest that ISR-PCI accounts for 5-10% of all PCI procedures performed in current clinical practice. This State-of-the-Art review will primarily focus on the management of ISR but will begin by briefly discussing diagnosis and classification. We then move on to detail the evidence base underpinning the various therapeutic strategies for ISR before finishing with a proposed ISR management algorithm based on current scientific data.

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.

Rotational atherectomy for the management of undilatable in-stent restenosis with single or multiple stent layers

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the best treatment of undilatable coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) regardless of the number of stent layers. We aimed to evaluate the procedural and clinical outcomes of rotational atherectomy (RA) to treat undilatable coronary ISR with single or multiple stent layers.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients treated with RA for undilatable ISR with single or multiple stent layers in the Mount Sinai catheterization laboratory between January 2016 and September 2018. Procedural success was defined as angiographic success without in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE): a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Clinical outcomes were assessed at one-year post-procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients were included in the study, in which 18 (69.2%) patients were with multiple stent layers. After RA, 9 (34.6%) were received a new drug-eluting stent, and 6 (23.1%) were treated with intravascular brachytherapy. Angiographic success was achieved in 24 (92.3%) patients, and procedural success was achieved in 22 (84.6%) patients. In-hospital MACE occurred in 4 (15.4%) patients, all due to periprocedural non-Q wave MI. Within one year, MACE occurred in 9 (34.6%) patients with 5 (19.2%) TLR.

CONCLUSIONS

RA for undilatable ISR with single or multiple stent layers was performed with favorable procedural outcomes and a relatively high MACE rate driven by TLR within one year.

Drug-eluting balloon: is it useful?

Background

Coronary artery disease is one of the major issues in the medical world around the globe. The prevalence tends to increase. The use of coronary intervention is one of the ways often used in the management of coronary artery disease due to its satisfying result from earlier studies. Nowadays, there are several different techniques in coronary intervention: balloon vs stent.

Main body

The stent-based vascular interventions are increasingly being used over balloon-based coronary intervention. However, revascularization intervention using stent often have undesirable long-term effects compared to balloon. Besides, stent-based interventions are also considered more expensive, use more complicated techniques, and use more drug regimens. On the other hand, percutaneous coronary intervention techniques using balloons coated by anti-proliferation drugs have begun to be glimpsed by many interventionists. Studies have found many benefits that cannot be given by stent-based intervention therapy.

Conclusions

Angioplasty using percutaneous coronary intervention techniques reveals satisfying result compared to conservative medical treatment. The indication and technique of percutaneous coronary intervention is still evolving until now. Currently, percutaneous coronary intervention using stent, either bare-metal stent or drug-eluting stent, is preferred by interventionist. Nevertheless, recent clinical trial favors the using of drug-eluting balloon for percutaneous coronary intervention in terms of both clinical outcome and complication in several scenarios.

Impact of hemodialysis on clinical and angiographic outcomes in in-stent restenotic lesions following optical coherence tomography-guided drug-coated balloon treatment

Hemodialysis (HD) is associated with a high in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate even in the second-generation era. Drug-coated balloons (DCB) generally provide excellent clinical outcomes in patients with ISR lesions. Nonetheless, safety and efficacy of DCB for ISR lesions in HD patients are largely unknown. A total of 17 centers across Japan participated in this study. Patients were eligible for the study if ISR lesions were treated with DCB. Enrolled patients were divided into 2 groups (HD and non-HD groups). Angiographic, OCT, and clinical outcomes were compared between the HD and the non-HD groups. A total of 210 patients were enrolled (36 patients in the HD group, and 174 patients in the non-HD group). At 8 months, the binary restenosis rate was significantly higher (26.3% versus 11.3%, p = 0.02) and in-segment late loss was significantly higher (0.49 ± 0.61 mm versus 0.23 ± 0.33 mm, p = 0.02) in the HD group than the non-HD group. In the OCT analyses, change of minimum stent area between post- and pre-procedure was significantly smaller in the HD group compared to the non-HD group (0.08 ± 0.95 mm² versus 0.68 ± 1.07 mm², p = 0.004). Target vessel failure (TVF) rate at 2 years was significantly different between the 2 groups (25.0% in the HD group and 12.1% in the non-HD group, p = 0.04). In the multivariate analysis, HD was a significant predictor for TVF (Hazard ratio 5.81, 95% CI 1.28-26.4, p = 0.02). Clinical and angiographic outcomes following OCT-guided DCB treatment in ISR lesions were significantly worse in HD patients compared to non-HD patients.Clinical Trial Registration Information: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02300454.

Coronary Intravascular Brachytherapy for Recurrent Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent In-Stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the outcomes with intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT) in recurrent in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

Recurrent ISR can be challenging to treat and IVBT can be used for recurrent ISR but has received limited study.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of five observational studies, including 917 patients (1014 lesions) with recurrent ISR, defined as having at least two prior ISR episodes with previous treatment with a stent, who underwent treatment with IVBT. Outcomes of interest included target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 24 ± 7 months, the incidence of TVR was 29.2% (95% CI 18.0-40.4%). The incidence of MI and all-cause mortality were 4.3% (95% CI 1.7%-6.9%) and 7.3% (95% CI 3.2-11.5%), respectively. At one- and two-years after PCI the incidence of TVR was 17.5% (95% CI 13.6%-21.4%) and 26.7% (95% CI 16.6%-36.9%), respectively and the incidence of MI was 3.1% (95% CI 2-4.2%) and 3.9% (95% CI 1-6.8%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Intravascular brachytherapy can be used to treat recurrent ISR, although TVR is needed in approximately one of four patients at two years.

Outcomes of intravascular brachytherapy for recurrent drug-eluting in-stent restenosis

OBJECTIVES

To examine the outcomes of vascular brachytherapy (VBT) for recurrent drug-eluting stents (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

Recurrent DES-ISR can be challenging to treat. VBT has been used with encouraging results.

METHODS

We report the long-term outcomes of patients with recurrent DES-ISR treated with VBT between January 2014 and September 2018 at a tertiary care institution. The main outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), target lesion myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion-related cardiac death. Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to identify variables associated with recurrent TLF.

RESULTS

During the study period, 116 patients (143 lesions) underwent VBT. Median follow-up was 24.7 (14.5-35.4) months. The incidence of TLR, target-lesion MI, and TLF was 18.9%, 5.6%,and 20.1% at 1 year, and 29.4%, 10.5%, and 32.9% at 2 years.Initial presentation with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was independently associated with TLF (hazard ratio = 1.975, 95% CI [1.120, 3.485], p = .019). Lesions treated with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance had a lower incidence of TLR (14.3% vs. 39.6%, log-rank p = .038), and a trend toward lower incidence of TLF (19% vs. 42.6%, log-rank p = .086).

CONCLUSIONS

VBT can improve the treatment of recurrent DES-ISR, but TLF occurs in approximately one in three patients at 2 years. Initial presentation with ACS was associated with higher TLF and the use of IVUS with a trend for lower incidence of TLF.

Restenosis of Drug-Eluting Stents

Despite on-going evolution and iteration of drug-eluting stent (DES) technology, the prevalence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains relatively unchanged, encompassing ≈10% of percutaneous coronary interventions. The mechanism of ISR is multifactorial, including biological, mechanical, patient, and operator-related factors. The main mechanical contributors are stent underexpansion or fracture, while biological factors include local inflammation leading to aggressive neointimal proliferation and late neoatherosclerosis. Intracoronary imaging is critical to identify the mechanism of ISR and tailor therapy accordingly. The presentation of DES-ISR is not benign and is challenging for optimal treatment. Among the proposed treatment modalities are scoring and high-pressure balloons, percutaneous coronary intervention with additional DES, atheroablative therapies by laser or mechanical atherectomy, drug-coated balloons, vascular brachytherapy, and surgical revascularization. We propose a new classification for ISR that differentiates among mechanical, biological, and mixed etiologies. Stratifying ISR by mechanism guides individualized treatment of DES-ISR to improve clinical outcomes. An algorithmic approach, guided by intracoronary imaging, for the treatment of DES-ISR, is recommended based on the specific cause of restenosis.