| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 2004;109:1085-1088.)
© 2004 American Heart Association, Inc.
Brief Rapid Communications |
From the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Lenox Hill Heart and Vascular Institute, New York, NY.
Reprint requests to Jeffrey W. Moses, MD, Lenox Hill Heart and Vascular Institute, 130 E 77th St, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10021. E-mail jmoses{at}lenoxhill.net
Received December 1, 2003; revision received January 16, 2004; accepted January 22, 2004.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Methods and Results Forty-eight ISR lesions (41 patients with objective evidence of ischemia) were treated with SES. Recurrent ISR was identified in 11 lesions (all focal); repeat revascularization was performed in 10. These were compared with 16 patients (19 lesions) without recurrence as documented by angiography. Nine of 11 recurrent lesions had a minimum stent area (MSA) <5.0 mm2 versus 5 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.003); 7 of 11 recurrent lesions had an MSA <4.0 mm2 versus 4 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.02); and 4 of 11 recurrent lesions had an MSA <3.0 mm2 versus 1 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.03). A gap between SESs was identified in 3 of 11 recurrences versus 1 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions.
Conclusions Stent underexpansion is a significant cause of failure after SES implantation treatment of ISR.
Key Words: ultrasonics restenosis stents
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
ISR was defined as >50% diameter stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography within a previously stented vessel and classified as suggested by Mehran et al.8 All SESs were implanted according to standard clinical practice (with or without predilation) with maximum balloon pressures of
14 atm. Fifty-five SESs (1.8/lesion) were implanted; mean stent length was 30.1±21.9 mm. Eighteen lesions were treated with 1 stent, 6 with 2 stents, 1 with 3 stents, and 5 with
4 stents.
Procedural success was residual stenosis <30% by quantitative coronary angiography with Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 3. Quantitative coronary angiography was performed with computer-assisted automated edge-detection (CMS, MEDIS) by an independent observer who was unaware of the clinical and IVUS findings.
A dedicated Data Coordinating Center performed all data management and analysis. Prespecified clinical and laboratory demographic information was obtained from hospital charts.
IVUS Imaging and Analysis
IVUS imaging was performed with a commercially available mechanical sector scanner (Boston Scientific) that incorporated a 40-MHz single-element beveled transducer that rotated at 1800 rpm. All IVUS studies were performed after 100 to 200 µg of intracoronary nitroglycerine was administered. The ultrasound catheter was advanced >10 mm beyond the lesion, and an imaging run was performed to a point 10 mm proximal to the lesion with motorized transducer pullback at 0.5 mm/s. Data were recorded onto 0.5-inch high-resolution super-VHS videotape for offline analysis.
Quantitative volumetric IVUS analysis was performed by computerized planimetry (TapeMeasure, Indec Systems) by an independent experienced observer who was unaware of the clinical data. Postinterventional and/or follow-up stent and intimal hyperplasia (stent minus lumen) cross-sectional areas were measured every 1 mm. In proximal and distal reference segments, external elastic membrane, lumen, and plaque and media (external elastic membrane minus lumen) cross-sectional area and plaque burden (plaque and media divided by external elastic membrane) were measured. The proximal and distal reference segments were the least-diseased image slices (largest lumen with least plaque) proximal and distal to the lesion but within the same segment and before any major side branch. Residual edge stenosis was defined as stent edge plaque burden >50%.9 A gap between stents was the absence of stent struts in at least 1 IVUS cross section in the region between multiple stents.9
Continuous variables were expressed as mean±1 SD and compared by unpaired Students t test. Categorical variables are presented as number (%) and compared with
2 statistics. P<0.05 was considered significant.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Recurrent ISR was identified in 11 lesions (11/30, 37%), with a mean time to recurrence of 200±74 days. Individual patient and lesion information is listed in Table 2. There was no significant difference in patient characteristics or baseline Mehran classification between recurrent and nonrecurrent lesions. The recurrent ISR pattern was focal in 7 and multifocal in 4; 5 of these were focal and 6 were diffuse at the time of SES implantation. Seven recurrences were intrastent; 2 were at the proximal edge, and 2 were at the distal edge. Recurrence lesion length was significantly shorter than at pre-SES implantation (5.8±1.8 versus 14.6±8.0 mm, P<0.001).
|
Stent underexpansion was more common in recurrent lesions than in nonrecurrent lesions despite the use of high inflation pressures at the time of implantation (18±4 atm). Nine (82%) of 11 recurrent lesions had a minimum stent area (MSA) <5.0 mm2 versus 5 (26%) of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.003). Seven (64%) of 11 recurrent lesions had an MSA <4.0 mm2 versus 4 (21%) of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.02). Four (36%) of 11 recurrent lesions had an MSA <3.0 mm2 versus 1 (5%) of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.03).
A gap between SESs was detected in 3 recurrent lesions, 1 by retrospective analysis of the IVUS performed at SES implantation and 2 by analysis of the follow-up IVUS. Only 1 nonrecurrent lesion had a gap. In these 4 cases, the SES gap was not detectable angiographically, and it measured <1 mm in length by IVUS.
Among patients with recurrent ISR, the 1 asymptomatic patient did not undergo repeat revascularization. One patient underwent bypass graft surgery because of recurrent ISR and progression of other lesions. Nine patients underwent percutaneous revascularization; 4 patients were treated with balloon angioplasty, 1 with cutting balloon, 1 with
-irradiation, and 3 with additional SESs. One patient, an 82-year-old female with insulin-treated diabetes, died 2 months after successful implantation of another SES.
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A recent IVUS study showed that an MSA <5.0 mm2 was the optimal threshold to predict target-lesion revascularization 8 months after treatment of de novo lesions with SESs.10 The predictive accuracy of this cutoff was 90%, which indicates that SES underexpansion was the main reason for ISR. In the present study, 9 of 11 recurrences occurred in lesions with MSA <5.0 mm2 despite the use of high inflation pressure (18±4 atm). In these, even a small amount of neointimal growth may compromise the lumen and lead to recurrent symptoms. Although aggressive stent expansion may not be necessary with SES, the present results indicate that adequate stent dimensions are still important. Thus, in selected patients, even higher inflation pressures may be needed (ideally, before SES implantation and controlled with IVUS guidance) to achieve a minimum acceptable stent area.
In 3 patients with recurrent lesions, IVUS identified a gap between multiple SESs. We speculate that sirolimus does not diffuse substantially from the edge of the stent to have a biological effect in the gap. Therefore, when ISR is treated with SES, it may be important to cover the entire length of previously implanted stents. This has been noted by others.6,9
Study Limitations
This is a small observational study. Follow-up angiograms and IVUS were not performed in all patients, and in 2 patients, IVUS was performed only at follow-up. However, previous IVUS studies have shown that stent dimensions do not change over time11; thus, stent areas at follow-up should be an accurate reflection of stent areas immediately after SES implantation.
Conclusions
Focal recurrence after SES treatment of ISR was observed in 25% of patients. IVUS showed that stent underexpansion, in particular, was associated with failure of SES implantation for the treatment of ISR.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
P. Roy, D. H. Steinberg, S. J. Sushinsky, T. Okabe, T. L. P. Slottow, K. Kaneshige, Z. Xue, L. F. Satler, K. M. Kent, W. O. Suddath, et al. The potential clinical utility of intravascular ultrasound guidance in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents Eur. Heart J., June 11, 2008; (2008) ehn249v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Honda and P. J. Fitzgerald Frontiers in Intravascular Imaging Technologies Circulation, April 15, 2008; 117(15): 2024 - 2037. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Di Mario and P. Barlis Optical Coherence Tomography: A New Tool to Detect Tissue Coverage in Drug-Eluting Stents J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., April 1, 2008; 1(2): 174 - 175. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Romagnoli, G. M. Sangiorgi, J. Cosgrave, E. Guillet, and A. Colombo Drug-Eluting Stenting: The Case for Post-Dilation J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., February 1, 2008; 1(1): 22 - 31. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. S. Mintz and N. J. Weissman Intravascular Ultrasound in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 1, 2006; 48(3): 421 - 429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Alfonso, M.-J. Perez-Vizcayno, R. Hernandez, A. Bethencourt, V. Marti, J. R. Lopez-Minguez, J. Angel, R. Mantilla, C. Moris, A. Cequier, et al. A Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With Balloon Angioplasty in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: Results of the Restenosis Intrastent: Balloon Angioplasty Versus Elective Sirolimus-Eluting Stenting (RIBS-II) Trial J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 6, 2006; 47(11): 2152 - 2160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M.-K. Hong, G. S. Mintz, C. W. Lee, D.-W. Park, B.-R. Choi, K.-H. Park, Y.-H. Kim, S.-S. Cheong, J.-K. Song, J.-J. Kim, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors of angiographic restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation Eur. Heart J., June 1, 2006; 27(11): 1305 - 1310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Hoye, I. Iakovou, L. Ge, C. A.G. van Mieghem, A. T.L. Ong, J. Cosgrave, G. M. Sangiorgi, F. Airoldi, M. Montorfano, I. Michev, et al. Long-Term Outcomes After Stenting of Bifurcation Lesions With the "Crush" Technique: Predictors of an Adverse Outcome J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 16, 2006; 47(10): 1949 - 1958. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Ge, F. Airoldi, I. Iakovou, J. Cosgrave, I. Michev, G. M. Sangiorgi, M. Montorfano, A. Chieffo, M. Carlino, N. Corvaja, et al. Clinical and Angiographic Outcome After Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stents in Bifurcation Lesions With the Crush Stent Technique: Importance of Final Kissing Balloon Post-Dilation J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 16, 2005; 46(4): 613 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Alfonso Drug-Eluting Stents and In-Stent Restenosis JAMA, April 20, 2005; 293(15): 1855 - 1855. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Alfonso Optimal Implantation Strategies Using Drug-Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis: Do We Know the Answer? Circulation, September 14, 2004; 110(11): e302 - e302. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2004 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |