OBJECTIVES: This randomized trial compared repeat stenting with balloon angioplasty (BA) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: Stent restenosis constitutes a therapeutic challenge. Repeat coronary interventions are currently used in this setting, but the recurrence risk remains high. METHODS: We randomly assigned 450 patients with ISR toelective stent implantation (224 patients) or conventional BA (226 patients). Primary end point was recurrent restenosis rate at six months. Secondary end points included minimal lumen diameter (MLD), prespecified subgroup analyses, and a composite of major adverse events. RESULTS:Procedural success was similar in both groups, but in-hospital complications were more frequent in the balloon group. After the procedure MLD was larger in the stent group (2.77 +/- 0.4 vs. 2.25 +/- 0.5 mm, p < 0.001). At follow-up, MLD was larger after stenting when the in-lesion site was considered (1.69 +/- 0.8 vs. 1.54 +/- 0.7 mm, p = 0.046). However, the binary restenosis rate (38% stent group, 39% balloon group) was similar with the two strategies. One-year event-free survival (follow-up 100%) was also similar in both groups (77% stent vs. 71% balloon, p = 0.19). Nevertheless, in the prespecified subgroup of patients with large vessels (> or =3 mm) the restenosis rate (27% vs. 49%, p = 0.007) and the event-free survival (84% vs. 62%, p = 0.002) were better after repeat stenting. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR, repeat coronary stenting provided better initial angiographic results but failed to improve restenosis rate and clinical outcome when compared with BA. However, in patients with large vessels coronary stenting improved the long-term clinical and angiographic outcome.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This randomized trial compared repeat stenting with balloon angioplasty (BA) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: Stent restenosis constitutes a therapeutic challenge. Repeat coronary interventions are currently used in this setting, but the recurrence risk remains high. METHODS: We randomly assigned 450 patients with ISR to elective stent implantation (224 patients) or conventional BA (226 patients). Primary end point was recurrent restenosis rate at six months. Secondary end points included minimal lumen diameter (MLD), prespecified subgroup analyses, and a composite of major adverse events. RESULTS: Procedural success was similar in both groups, but in-hospital complications were more frequent in the balloon group. After the procedure MLD was larger in the stent group (2.77 +/- 0.4 vs. 2.25 +/- 0.5 mm, p < 0.001). At follow-up, MLD was larger after stenting when the in-lesion site was considered (1.69 +/- 0.8 vs. 1.54 +/- 0.7 mm, p = 0.046). However, the binary restenosis rate (38% stent group, 39% balloon group) was similar with the two strategies. One-year event-free survival (follow-up 100%) was also similar in both groups (77% stent vs. 71% balloon, p = 0.19). Nevertheless, in the prespecified subgroup of patients with large vessels (> or =3 mm) the restenosis rate (27% vs. 49%, p = 0.007) and the event-free survival (84% vs. 62%, p = 0.002) were better after repeat stenting. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR, repeat coronary stenting provided better initial angiographic results but failed to improve restenosis rate and clinical outcome when compared with BA. However, in patients with large vessels coronary stenting improved the long-term clinical and angiographic outcome.
Authors: E Iofina; P W Radke; P Skurzewski; P K Haager; R Blindt; K-C Koch; P Hanrath; J vom Dahl; R Hoffmann Journal: Heart Date: 2005-03-29 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Jochen Wöhrle; Bernd Joachim Krause; Thorsten Nusser; Felix M Mottaghy; Thomas Habig; Matthias Kochs; Jörg Kotzerke; Sven N Reske; Vinzenz Hombach; Martin Höher Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-06-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Helge Möllmann; Albrecht Elsässer; Holger Nef; Steffen Schneider; Christoph A Nienaber; Gert Richardt; Michael Weber; Malte Kelm; Benny Levenson; Tassilo Bonzel; Ulrich Tebbe; Georg Sabin; Thomas Pfannebecker; Jochen Senges; Christian W Hamm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Inder M Singh; Steven J Filby; Fredy El Sakr; Eiran Z Gorodeski; A Michael Lincoff; Stephen G Ellis; Mehdi H Shishehbor Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 2.692