AIMS: To evaluate the clinical outcome after treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: For identification of the relevant literature a specific search strategy was conducted and explicit inclusion criteria were defined to avoid selection bias. Based on the selected literature, a systematic review using descriptive statistics and meta-analysis methods regarding the outcome after treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis was performed. The proportion of patients experiencing a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) as defined by death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization was the main outcome measure. A total of 1304 citations were identified. Among these, 28 studies (six different treatment modalities) including a total of 3012 patients met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated into this analysis. The estimated average probability of experiencing a major cardiac adverse event after treatment for in-stent restenosis with a follow-up period of 9+/-4 months was 30.0% (25.0-34.9%, 95% confidence interval) with strong evidence for heterogeneity between study specific results (P=0.0001). The clinical outcome was not significantly different between treatment modalities. After adjustment for confounding factors (i.e. lesion length), however, patients undergoing intracoronary radiation showed an estimated advantage of 16.9% (-37.7+/-4.0%, 95% confidence interval) in MACE free survival, as compared to balloon angioplasty. The post-interventional diameter stenosis was the only independent predictor for the long-term outcome after treatment of in-stent restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of in-stent restenosis is associated with an overall 30% rate of major adverse cardiac events. Currently, repeat angioplasty is the treatment option of choice, especially when a sufficient acute procedural result can be achieved. Intracoronary radiation should be considered in cases with therapy refractory forms of diffuse in-stent restenosis.
AIMS: To evaluate the clinical outcome after treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: For identification of the relevant literature a specific search strategy was conducted and explicit inclusion criteria were defined to avoid selection bias. Based on the selected literature, a systematic review using descriptive statistics and meta-analysis methods regarding the outcome after treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis was performed. The proportion of patients experiencing a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) as defined by death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization was the main outcome measure. A total of 1304 citations were identified. Among these, 28 studies (six different treatment modalities) including a total of 3012 patients met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated into this analysis. The estimated average probability of experiencing a major cardiac adverse event after treatment for in-stent restenosis with a follow-up period of 9+/-4 months was 30.0% (25.0-34.9%, 95% confidence interval) with strong evidence for heterogeneity between study specific results (P=0.0001). The clinical outcome was not significantly different between treatment modalities. After adjustment for confounding factors (i.e. lesion length), however, patients undergoing intracoronary radiation showed an estimated advantage of 16.9% (-37.7+/-4.0%, 95% confidence interval) in MACE free survival, as compared to balloon angioplasty. The post-interventional diameter stenosis was the only independent predictor for the long-term outcome after treatment of in-stent restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of in-stent restenosis is associated with an overall 30% rate of major adverse cardiac events. Currently, repeat angioplasty is the treatment option of choice, especially when a sufficient acute procedural result can be achieved. Intracoronary radiation should be considered in cases with therapy refractory forms of diffuse in-stent restenosis.
Authors: Gordon E Pate; May Lee; Karin Humphries; Eric Cohen; Robert Lowe; Rebecca S Fox; Robert Teskey; Christopher E Buller Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: R Marcucci; D Brogi; F Sofi; C Giglioli; S Valente; A Alessandrello Liotta; M Lenti; A M Gori; D Prisco; R Abbate; G F Gensini Journal: Heart Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Daisuke Hachinohe; Myung Ho Jeong; Min Chol Kim; Kyung Hoon Cho; Khurshid Ahmed; Seung Hwan Hwang; Min Goo Lee; Doo Sun Sim; Keun-Ho Park; Ju Han Kim; Young Joon Hong; Youngkeun Ahn; Jung Chaee Kang Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Ralf Zahn; Christian W Hamm; Uwe Zeymer; Gert Richardt; Malte Kelm; Benny Levenson; Tassilo Bonzel; Ulrich Tebbe; Georg Sabin; Christoph A Nienaber; Thomas Pfannebecker; Jochen Senges Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2009-10-31 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Donato Gemmati; Federica Federici; Gianluca Campo; Silvia Tognazzo; Maria L Serino; Monica De Mattei; Marco Valgimigli; Patrizia Malagutti; Gabriele Guardigli; Paolo Ferraresi; Francesco Bernardi; Roberto Ferrari; Gian L Scapoli; Linda Catozzi Journal: Mol Med Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 6.354
Authors: Negar Faramarzi; Mojtaba Salarifar; Seyed Ebrahim Kassaian; Ali Mohammad Haji Zeinali; Mohammad Alidoosti; Hamidreza Pourhoseini; Ebrahim Nematipour; Mohammad Reza Mousavi; Hamidreza Goodarzynejad Journal: J Tehran Heart Cent Date: 2013-01-08