BACKGROUND: In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a persistent, unresolved issue even in the era of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents. The present study compares the clinical and angiographic outcomes of using sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for re-intervention against ISR that was originally treated with sirolimus-eluting or bare-metal (BMS) stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective single-center registry investigated 179 ISR lesions in 158 consecutive patients (53 lesions in 49, and 126 in 109 patients originally treated with SES and BMS, respectively), who had undergone re-intervention with SES. The patients were clinically and angiographically followed up at 8 months after re-PCI. The incidence of re-restenosis (29 vs 12%, P<0.01), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR; 21 vs 8%, P<0.05) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; 21 vs 9%, P<0.05) were significantly greater in ISR lesions originally treated with SES than in those originally treated with BMS at 8 months after re-PCI. Moreover, late luminal loss was significantly greater in the group with post-SES restenosis (P<0.05). Even after adjustment, post-SES restenosis was the only independent predictor of re-restenosis and MACE (P<0.05, each). CONCLUSIONS: Although the re-restenosis rate is acceptable, the incidence rates of late restenosis, ischemia-driven TLR and MACE are higher after repeated SES implantation to treat SES, than BMS restenosis. These results might affect the mid-term clinical outcomes of re-intervention with SES.
BACKGROUND: In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a persistent, unresolved issue even in the era of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents. The present study compares the clinical and angiographic outcomes of using sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for re-intervention against ISR that was originally treated with sirolimus-eluting or bare-metal (BMS) stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective single-center registry investigated 179 ISR lesions in 158 consecutive patients (53 lesions in 49, and 126 in 109 patients originally treated with SES and BMS, respectively), who had undergone re-intervention with SES. The patients were clinically and angiographically followed up at 8 months after re-PCI. The incidence of re-restenosis (29 vs 12%, P<0.01), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR; 21 vs 8%, P<0.05) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; 21 vs 9%, P<0.05) were significantly greater in ISR lesions originally treated with SES than in those originally treated with BMS at 8 months after re-PCI. Moreover, late luminal loss was significantly greater in the group with post-SES restenosis (P<0.05). Even after adjustment, post-SES restenosis was the only independent predictor of re-restenosis and MACE (P<0.05, each). CONCLUSIONS: Although the re-restenosis rate is acceptable, the incidence rates of late restenosis, ischemia-driven TLR and MACE are higher after repeated SES implantation to treat SES, than BMS restenosis. These results might affect the mid-term clinical outcomes of re-intervention with SES.