BACKGROUND: The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after DES implantation is not well defined. This study compared the clinical outcome after the use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for the treatment of bare-metal stent (BMS) versus DES restenosis. METHOD: Ninety-four patients with 94 ISR were included in this study. Sixty-four patients had BMS-ISR and 30 patients had DES-ISR. Patients were treated by repeat PCI using an EES. The primary endpoint of the study was survival free of target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months or DES-ISR versus BMS-ISR patients. The secondary endpoints were survival free of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and definite stent thrombosis. RESULTS: The baseline clinical and angiographic parameters were comparable between the two groups. Treatment of DES-ISR was associated with higher rates of recurrent TLR, myocardial infarction (MI), and MACE at the 12-month follow-up compared with the treatment of BMS-ISR (23.3 versus 1.6%, P=0.002 for TLR; 13.3 versus 0%, P=0.017 for MI; and 30 versus 4.6%, P=0.003 for MACE). There were no differences in mortality and definite stent thrombosis between both groups (P=0.5686 and 0.6927, respectively). Initial stent number (odds ratio=1.13, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.25; P=0.024) and initial stent type being a DES (odds ratio=8.11, 95% confidence interval 5.99-10.45; P<0.001) were independent predictors of recurrent TLR after the treatment of ISR using an EES. CONCLUSION: EES used for the treatment of DES-ISR is associated with higher rates of recurrent revascularization, MI, and MACE compared with EES for the treatment of BMS-ISR.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after DES implantation is not well defined. This study compared the clinical outcome after the use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for the treatment of bare-metal stent (BMS) versus DES restenosis. METHOD: Ninety-four patients with 94 ISR were included in this study. Sixty-four patients had BMS-ISR and 30 patients had DES-ISR. Patients were treated by repeat PCI using an EES. The primary endpoint of the study was survival free of target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months or DES-ISR versus BMS-ISR patients. The secondary endpoints were survival free of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and definite stent thrombosis. RESULTS: The baseline clinical and angiographic parameters were comparable between the two groups. Treatment of DES-ISR was associated with higher rates of recurrent TLR, myocardial infarction (MI), and MACE at the 12-month follow-up compared with the treatment of BMS-ISR (23.3 versus 1.6%, P=0.002 for TLR; 13.3 versus 0%, P=0.017 for MI; and 30 versus 4.6%, P=0.003 for MACE). There were no differences in mortality and definite stent thrombosis between both groups (P=0.5686 and 0.6927, respectively). Initial stent number (odds ratio=1.13, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.25; P=0.024) and initial stent type being a DES (odds ratio=8.11, 95% confidence interval 5.99-10.45; P<0.001) were independent predictors of recurrent TLR after the treatment of ISR using an EES. CONCLUSION: EES used for the treatment of DES-ISR is associated with higher rates of recurrent revascularization, MI, and MACE compared with EES for the treatment of BMS-ISR.