OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to determine whether cutting balloon angioplasty (CBA) has advantages over other modalities in treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: Controversies exist regarding optimal treatment for ISR. Recently, CBA emerged as a tool in management of ISR. METHODS: A total of 648 lesions treated for ISR were divided into four groups according to the treatment strategy: CBA, rotational atherectomy (ROTA), additional stenting (STENT), and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Following the matching process, 258 lesions were entered into the analysis. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar among the groups (p = NS). Acute lumen gain was significantly higher in the STENT group (2.12 +/- 0.7 mm), whereas in the CBA group the gain was similar to one achieved following ROTA and following PTCA (1.70 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.79 +/- 0.5 mm and 1.56 +/- 0.7 mm, respectively; p = NS). The lumen loss at follow-up was lower for the CBA versus ROTA and versus STENT (0.63 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.30 +/- 0.8 mm and 1.36 +/- 0.8 mm, respectively; p < 0.0001), yielding a lower recurrent restenosis rate (20% vs. 35.9% and 41.4%, respectively; p < 0.05). By multivariate analysis, CBA (odds ratio [OR] = 0.17; confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.51; p = 0.001) and diffuse restenosis type at baseline (OR = 2.07; CI, 1.15 to 3.71; p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of target lesion revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that CBA is a safe and efficient technique for treatment of ISR, with immediate results similar to atheroablation and better clinical and angiographic outcomes at follow-up. This approach might be implemented as a viable option in management of focal ISR and to prepare diffuse ISR for brachytherapy treatment.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to determine whether cutting balloon angioplasty (CBA) has advantages over other modalities in treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: Controversies exist regarding optimal treatment for ISR. Recently, CBA emerged as a tool in management of ISR. METHODS: A total of 648 lesions treated for ISR were divided into four groups according to the treatment strategy: CBA, rotational atherectomy (ROTA), additional stenting (STENT), and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Following the matching process, 258 lesions were entered into the analysis. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar among the groups (p = NS). Acute lumen gain was significantly higher in the STENT group (2.12 +/- 0.7 mm), whereas in the CBA group the gain was similar to one achieved following ROTA and following PTCA (1.70 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.79 +/- 0.5 mm and 1.56 +/- 0.7 mm, respectively; p = NS). The lumen loss at follow-up was lower for the CBA versus ROTA and versus STENT (0.63 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.30 +/- 0.8 mm and 1.36 +/- 0.8 mm, respectively; p < 0.0001), yielding a lower recurrent restenosis rate (20% vs. 35.9% and 41.4%, respectively; p < 0.05). By multivariate analysis, CBA (odds ratio [OR] = 0.17; confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.51; p = 0.001) and diffuse restenosis type at baseline (OR = 2.07; CI, 1.15 to 3.71; p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of target lesion revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that CBA is a safe and efficient technique for treatment of ISR, with immediate results similar to atheroablation and better clinical and angiographic outcomes at follow-up. This approach might be implemented as a viable option in management of focal ISR and to prepare diffuse ISR for brachytherapy treatment.
Authors: Gregory G Westin; Ehrin J Armstrong; Usman Javed; Christopher R Balwanz; Haseeb Saeed; William C Pevec; John R Laird; David L Dawson Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: F Saia; P A Lemos; C A Arampatzis; A Hoye; M Degertekin; K Tanabe; G Sianos; P C Smits; W J van der Giessen; P J de Feyter; R T van Domburg; P W Serruys Journal: Heart Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.994