Search

Despite encouraging results from randomized trials, concerns exist about long-term results of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. We sought to determine whether in-stent restenosis occurring >1 year ("late") after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation is a real clinical entity. We analyzed data on all sirolimus-eluting stents implanted in our institution before March 2003. During the study period 928 lesions in 433 patients were treated. Angiographic follow-up was performed in 306 patients (70.6%) with 679 lesions (73.2%). Angiography after 1 year was performed only in symptomatic patients. We considered restenosis "early" if it occurred during the first year and late if after 1 year. Late restenosis required demonstration of a widely patent stent at 6 to 9 months, with repeat angiography after 1 year demonstrating restenosis. Restenosis occurred in 160 lesions overall (23.5%). Of the 31 (4.6%) that were documented after 1 year, 13 were excluded from analysis due to absence of 6- to 9-month angiography; the remaining 18 (2.6%, 1.7 to 4.2) fulfilled our criteria for late restenosis (median time of documentation 607 days, interquartile range 511 to 923). In conclusion, late restenosis is an infrequent but real entity; its existence implies we should not discount the possibility of restenosis as the cause of symptoms that develop >1 year after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation.

Background: Currently, little data are available on the management of drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis. Drug resistance may play a role in its etiology., Methods: We identified all cases of either sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stent restenosis treated with repeated DES implantation. The lesions were divided into those receiving the same DES as the one that restenosed and those treated with the alternative DES. The end points analyzed were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and angiographic restenosis., Results: We included 201 lesions (174 patients); the same DES was implanted in 107 lesions and a different DES in 94 lesions. Angiographic follow-up of the retreatment was available in 69.7% of the lesions. Angiographic restenosis occurred in 26.4% (19) of cases treated with the same DES and 25.8% (17) of those treated with a different DES (P = 1.0). Target lesion revascularization occurred in 15.9% (17) and 16% (15) of lesions, respectively (P = 1.0). A multivariate analysis confirmed the lack of association between the treatment selected and TLR (OR 0.7, 95% CIs [0.29-1.67]; P = .42). A nonfocal pattern of restenosis remained associated with TLR and restenosis (OR 2.99, 95% CIs [1.24-7.24]; P = .015 and OR 3.6, 95% CIs [1.5-8.8]; P = .004, respectively)., Conclusions: Repeated DES implantation for DES restenosis is feasible and safe. The TLR rate is acceptable, with no differences between implantation of the same or a different DES. The pattern of restenosis treated is an important predictor of outcomes.

Aim: To evaluate patterns of restenosis following implantation of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in comparable unselected lesions., Methods and Results: We have identified all episodes of restenosis after SES or PES implantation in our institutions between March 2003 and March 2005. Restenosis pattern was classified as focal, diffuse, proliferative, or occlusive. The position of focal restenosis was also categorized as proximal, in-stent, distal, or multi-focal. We have characterized 150 and 149 restenotic lesions in SES and PES groups, respectively. The incidence of diffuse and occlusive restenosis was significantly higher in PES than in SES (47.6 vs. 27.0%, P < 0.001). Multivariable (OR 2.693, 95% CI 1.425-5.089, P = 0.002) and propensity (OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.584-5.672, P < 0.001) analyses confirmed the positive association of PES with non-focal restenosis. For both stents, focal-edge restenosis was significantly more likely to occur proximally than distally (61.0 vs. 16.9%, P < 0.001 for PES and 45.8 vs. 16.8%, P < 0.001 for SES)., Conclusion: Focal restenosis remains the most common pattern with SES. In contrast, just under half of restenosis in PES is the more severe non-focal pattern. Paradoxically, the majority of focal restenosis occurs at the proximal stent margin for both platforms.

Objectives: We sought to determine if the angiographic pattern of in-stent restenosis in drug-eluting stents (DES) maintains its prognostic importance., Background: The pattern of restenosis in the bare-metal stent era had a significant impact on therapeutic outcomes., Methods: We identified a total of 250 consecutive restenotic lesions in 203 patients (66.4% sirolimus-eluting stents and 33.6% paclitaxel-eluting stents). We divided these lesions into two groups: focal, defined as < or =10 mm, 163 lesions (65.2%); and nonfocal, which were diffuse, proliferative, or obstructive, 87 lesions (34.8%). The end points analyzed were angiographic restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR)., Results: Diabetes was the only clinical variable associated with the pattern of restenosis (28.8% focal compared with 52.9% diffuse; p = 0.0001). Angiographic follow-up of the treatment of restenosis was available in 61.2% of the lesions and was similar between the two groups. The rate of angiographic restenosis was 17.8% in the focal group and 51.1% in the nonfocal group (p = 0.0001). The incidence of TLR also increased with the type of restenosis treated (9.8% and 23%, respectively; p = 0.007). An adjusted multivariate analysis revealed that the pattern of restenosis remained associated with both the occurrence of restenosis and TLR (odds ratio [OR] 5.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 23], p = 0.03; and OR 3.61 [95% CI 1.2 to 10.9], p = 0.02; respectively)., Conclusions: Similar to bare-metal stent data, the angiographic pattern of restenosis following DES implantation is prognostically important. Diabetes is a significant predictor of the pattern of restenosis in the DES era.

Objectives: The purpose of the present report was to evaluate clinical and angiographic outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions., Background: The safety and efficacy of DES implantation for the treatment SVG lesions remains uncertain., Methods: We evaluated in-hospital and six-month outcomes in 61 consecutive patients treated with DES in SVG lesions from March 2002 to March 2004 (DES group), as compared to 89 consecutive patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) in the 24 months immediately before the introduction of DES (BMS group). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were recorded in-hospital and at six-month follow-up., Results: The rate of in-hospital MACE was similar between the two groups (6.6% vs. 5.6%, p = 1.0). Cumulative MACE at six months was 11.5% in the DES group and 28.1% in the BMS group (p = 0.02). The DES group had a significantly lower incidence of in-segment restenosis (10.0% vs. 26.7%, p = 0.03), TLR (3.3% vs. 19.8%, p = 0.003), and TVR (4.9% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.003). By Cox regression analysis, diabetes (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33 to 6.90; p = 0.008), usage of BMS (HR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.07 to 5.97; p = 0.03), and age of SVG (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.19; p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of MACE at six-month follow-up., Conclusions: Compared to BMS implantation, DES implantation in SVG lesions appears safe with favorable and improved mid-term outcomes.