BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding restenosis after implantation of a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). OBJECTIVE: To report on angiographic characteristics, clinical presentation and treatment of this particularly complex type of coronary lesion. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1424 SES were implanted in 1159 patients (average 1.2 per patient) for chronic or acute coronary syndromes in the University Hospital of Siena (Siena, Italy), which is a tertiary centre. Symptomatic in-SES restenosis was observed in 26 patients (2.2%) at 10+/-5 months (median eight months, range four to 23 months) following the initial intervention. In-SES restenosis was associated with stable angina in 16 patients, acute myocardial infarction in three patients and unstable angina in seven patients. Two patients had restenosis in two separate SES. Conditions often associated with in-SES restenosis included treatment of chronic total occlusion, geographic miss or in-stent restenosis during the index procedure. Among the first 20 patients, those with focal, in-body SES (type Ic) restenosis received balloon-only angioplasty, and patients with other patterns received repeat SES implantation. Clinical and angiographic follow-up (average 16+/-7 months) recorded one death (noncardiac) in the balloon-only group and four cases of unstable angina (three due to relapsing in-SES restenosis in the balloon-only group and the fourth due to a de novo lesion). Follow-up quantitative angiography showed a higher incidence of binary restenosis after balloon-only treatment (57% versus 17%; P<0.05), as well as higher lumen loss and loss index (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Restenosis after SES implantation occurs more commonly in a focal pattern in-body or at the proximal edge of the stent. Repeat SES implantation appears to be a safer and more effective therapeutic choice than balloon-only angioplasty.
BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding restenosis after implantation of a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). OBJECTIVE: To report on angiographic characteristics, clinical presentation and treatment of this particularly complex type of coronary lesion. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1424 SES were implanted in 1159 patients (average 1.2 per patient) for chronic or acute coronary syndromes in the University Hospital of Siena (Siena, Italy), which is a tertiary centre. Symptomatic in-SESrestenosis was observed in 26 patients (2.2%) at 10+/-5 months (median eight months, range four to 23 months) following the initial intervention. In-SESrestenosis was associated with stable angina in 16 patients, acute myocardial infarction in three patients and unstable angina in seven patients. Two patients had restenosis in two separate SES. Conditions often associated with in-SESrestenosis included treatment of chronic total occlusion, geographic miss or in-stent restenosis during the index procedure. Among the first 20 patients, those with focal, in-body SES (type Ic) restenosis received balloon-only angioplasty, and patients with other patterns received repeat SES implantation. Clinical and angiographic follow-up (average 16+/-7 months) recorded one death (noncardiac) in the balloon-only group and four cases of unstable angina (three due to relapsing in-SESrestenosis in the balloon-only group and the fourth due to a de novo lesion). Follow-up quantitative angiography showed a higher incidence of binary restenosis after balloon-only treatment (57% versus 17%; P<0.05), as well as higher lumen loss and loss index (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Restenosis after SES implantation occurs more commonly in a focal pattern in-body or at the proximal edge of the stent. Repeat SES implantation appears to be a safer and more effective therapeutic choice than balloon-only angioplasty.
Authors: Michael Ragosta; Habib Samady; Lawrence W Gimple; Ian J Sarembock; Michael Fenster; Eric R Powers Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: B Reimers; I Moussa; T Akiyama; G Tucci; M Ferraro; G Martini; S Blengino; C Di Mario; A Colombo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R Mehran; G Dangas; A S Abizaid; G S Mintz; A J Lansky; L F Satler; A D Pichard; K M Kent; G W Stone; M B Leon Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-11-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Adnan Kastrati; Julinda Mehilli; Nicolas von Beckerath; Alban Dibra; Jörg Hausleiter; Jürgen Pache; Helmut Schühlen; Claus Schmitt; Josef Dirschinger; Albert Schömig Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-01-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Muzaffer Degertekin; Evelyn Regar; Kengo Tanabe; Pieter C Smits; Willem J van der Giessen; Stephan G Carlier; Pim de Feyter; Jeroen Vos; David P Foley; Jurgen M R Ligthart; Jeffrey J Popma; Patrick W Serruys Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Joachim Schofer; Michael Schlüter; Anthony H Gershlick; William Wijns; Eulogio Garcia; Erick Schampaert; Günter Breithardt Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-10-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Pedro A Lemos; Francesco Saia; Jurgen M R Ligthart; Chourmouzios A Arampatzis; Georgios Sianos; Kengo Tanabe; Angela Hoye; Muzaffer Degertekin; Joost Daemen; Eugene McFadden; Sjoerd Hofma; Pieter C Smits; Pim de Feyter; Willem J van der Giessen; Ron T van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-07-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jeffrey W Moses; Martin B Leon; Jeffrey J Popma; Peter J Fitzgerald; David R Holmes; Charles O'Shaughnessy; Ronald P Caputo; Dean J Kereiakes; David O Williams; Paul S Teirstein; Judith L Jaeger; Richard E Kuntz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245