The quest for the optimal treatment for in‐stent restenosis
B. Claessen,G. Dangas
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.27777
IF: 2.3
2018-08-01
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Abstract:In-stent restenosis (ISR) after percutaneous coronary intervention remains a major clinical challenge even in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) [1]. A large number of techniques have been attempted for coronary ISR treatment, including repeat (drug-eluting) stent implantation, drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty, conventional balloon angioplasty, cuttingor scoring balloon angioplasty, intravascular brachytherapy, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds, rotational atherectomy, laser atherectomy, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Due to a lack of large-scale randomized trials, uncertainty still exists about the optimal treatment strategy of ISR. Globally, the most commonly used treatment techniques are (repeat) DES implantation or DCB angioplasty. The meta-analysis by Kokkinidis et al. includes four randomized trials and six observational studies comparing second-generation DES versus paclitaxel-DCBs and showed that these treatment strategies yield similar outcomes for the treatment of ISR [2]. The use of DES compared with DCB was associated with a larger minimal luminal diameter at angiographic follow-up (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.12–0.66), but late lumen loss was similar (SMD20.03, 95% CI20.33–0.28). Importantly, there was no difference in target lesion revascularization and target vessel failure (the latter endpoint includes the possibility of recurrent occlusive ISR that is left alone) between DES and DCB. CABG (as part of TLR) was performed infrequently. This option is utilized in clinical practice for ISR in patients with a high syntax score. Since only a total n5683 patients were included from randomized trials, the meta-analysis is underpowered to exclude differences in death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. Moreover, the potential advantage of “leaving no additional metal behind” with a DCB may impact clinical endpoints throughout several years, while the current meta-analysis is limited to short-term follow-up. Finally, the observed significant heterogeneity regarding angiographic endpoints underscores that this meta-analysis of small-sized randomized trials and observational studies should not be perceived as a surrogate for an adequately powered randomized clinical trial. The choice between DCB and DES represents yet another step in the overall clinical decision-making process when dealing with ISR. First, consideration should be given to the mechanism causing ISR as several technical (e.g., edge dissection, stent underexpansion) and patient-related factors (diabetes mellitus, residual inflammatory or cholesterol risk, resistance to antiproliferative drugs used on DES) are associated with the occurrence of ISR [1]. Second, the prognosis of the ISR lesion depends on the type of device ISR occurred in (bare-metal stent, first generation DES, or second generation DES), and on the pattern of ISR (focal or non-focal, proliferative/occlusive ISR). Stent underexpansion (as the dominant ISR mechanism) should mainly trigger high pressure expansion techniques, whereas ablation may be helpful in neointimal hyperplasia driven ISR. A recent study has highlighted the importance of lesion preparation by showing improved angiographic outcomes when treating DES ISR with DCBs after scoring balloon predilation compared with conventional predilation [3] After taking into account these mechanistic and prognostic factors and adequate lesion preparation, the choice between DCB and DES can be made. Each technique has its own specific advantage, that is, DES are associated with improved immediate angiographic result (i.e., greater acute gain), while the use of a DCB obviates implanting an additional layer of metal with the potential of a shorter duration dual antiplatelet therapy, attenuated polymer-related inflammation, and less side branch jailing. Although vascular brachytherapy has been abandoned in most centers, is it still used in few centers of excellence for recalcitrant ISR in patients without a surgical option. Notably, the regulatory approval pathway is not very extensive: as of 2018 the only DES labeled by the FDA to be used in restenotic Received: 15 June 2018 | Accepted: 15 June 2018 DOI: 10.1002/ccd.27777
Medicine