BACKGROUND: We used intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to evaluate recurrence after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-eight ISR lesions (41 patients with objective evidence of ischemia) were treated with SES. Recurrent ISR was identified in 11 lesions (all focal); repeat revascularization was performed in 10. These were compared with 16 patients (19 lesions) without recurrence as documented by angiography. Nine of 11 recurrent lesions had a minimum stent area (MSA) <5.0 mm2 versus 5 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.003); 7 of 11 recurrent lesions had an MSA <4.0 mm2 versus 4 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.02); and 4 of 11 recurrent lesions had an MSA <3.0 mm2 versus 1 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.03). A gap between SESs was identified in 3 of 11 recurrences versus 1 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Stent underexpansion is a significant cause of failure after SES implantation treatment of ISR.
BACKGROUND: We used intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to evaluate recurrence after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-eight ISR lesions (41 patients with objective evidence of ischemia) were treated with SES. Recurrent ISR was identified in 11 lesions (all focal); repeat revascularization was performed in 10. These were compared with 16 patients (19 lesions) without recurrence as documented by angiography. Nine of 11 recurrent lesions had a minimum stent area (MSA) <5.0 mm2 versus 5 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.003); 7 of 11 recurrent lesions had an MSA <4.0 mm2 versus 4 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.02); and 4 of 11 recurrent lesions had an MSA <3.0 mm2 versus 1 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions (P=0.03). A gap between SESs was identified in 3 of 11 recurrences versus 1 of 19 nonrecurrent lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Stent underexpansion is a significant cause of failure after SES implantation treatment of ISR.