AIMS: Drug-eluting stents (DES) have become the first choice to treat BMS restenosis (ISR), replacing brachytherapy and all other available percutaneous approaches. Although markedly reduced, DES ISR still occurs and has been frequently treated with another DES, despite the lack of robust data supporting the safety and efficacy of this approach. We sought to compare the long term clinical outcomes of patients with BMS and DES ISR treated with another DES deployment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between May 2002 and January 2008 a total of 158 patients with BMS restenosis and 58 patients with DES restenosis were treated with a DES and enrolled in this registry. Primary endpoint included the cumulative occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE=cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularisation) and stent thrombosis. Baseline clinical aspects did not significantly differ between the groups. There was a trend toward a higher incidence of DM in the DES cohort (36.1% vs. 32.9%, p=0.1). Mean time between first procedure and restenosis was significant longer in the DES population (178+/-61 days vs. 140+/-38 days, p=0.02). At the end of the follow-up period, 92.6% of the patients with BMS-ISR and 86.3% of those with DES-ISR were free of MACE (p<0.001). Patients with DES ISR had significant more recurrence of ISR but equivalent rates of cardiac death, MI and stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous treatment of BMS or DES ISR with the implant of a DES represents a simple and safe approach with sustained long term results. However, the relatively high rate of ISR recurrence among patients with prior DES ISR demand the developing of more effective strategies for that subset of individuals.
AIMS: Drug-eluting stents (DES) have become the first choice to treat BMS restenosis (ISR), replacing brachytherapy and all other available percutaneous approaches. Although markedly reduced, DES ISR still occurs and has been frequently treated with another DES, despite the lack of robust data supporting the safety and efficacy of this approach. We sought to compare the long term clinical outcomes of patients with BMS and DES ISR treated with another DES deployment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between May 2002 and January 2008 a total of 158 patients with BMS restenosis and 58 patients with DES restenosis were treated with a DES and enrolled in this registry. Primary endpoint included the cumulative occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE=cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularisation) and stent thrombosis. Baseline clinical aspects did not significantly differ between the groups. There was a trend toward a higher incidence of DM in the DES cohort (36.1% vs. 32.9%, p=0.1). Mean time between first procedure and restenosis was significant longer in the DES population (178+/-61 days vs. 140+/-38 days, p=0.02). At the end of the follow-up period, 92.6% of the patients with BMS-ISR and 86.3% of those with DES-ISR were free of MACE (p<0.001). Patients with DES ISR had significant more recurrence of ISR but equivalent rates of cardiac death, MI and stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous treatment of BMS or DES ISR with the implant of a DES represents a simple and safe approach with sustained long term results. However, the relatively high rate of ISR recurrence among patients with prior DES ISR demand the developing of more effective strategies for that subset of individuals.