ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a significant challenge. Current options include repeat stenting or drug-coated balloons. However, there is a paucity of data regarding vascular healing after these strategies. We, aimed to compare optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based vessel healing after treatment with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) or everolimus-eluting stents (EES). METHODS: An OCT substudy (baseline and 6-9 months) of patients from RIBS IV and RIBS V, two prospective multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trials comparing PCB vs. EES in patients with ISR was performed. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were included (30 PCB and 34 EES). There were no differences in the baseline or angiographic characteristics between groups. Both groups had the same proportion of drug-eluting and bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR. Baseline OCT analysis did not show differences in the qualitative characteristics of the ISR nor the restenotic tissue burden. Follow-up OCT showed a larger mean lumen area in the EES group (6.03 ± 1.5 vs. 5.24 ± 1.3 mm 2 ; P = 0.043) but no difference in angiographic restenosis ( P = 0.66). Percentage tissue coverage was higher with PCB vs. EES (26 ± 13 vs. 19 ± 11%; P = 0.031). EES-treated ISR more frequently had uncovered struts at follow-up [21 (72%) vs. 12 (44%); P = 0.034]. Tissue covering struts more frequently had a high backscatter structure after PCB [21 (78%) vs. 16 (55%); P = 0.07]. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EES, ISR treated with PCB demonstrated more strut coverage with mainly high backscattering tissue. Larger OCT-defined neointimal proliferation in PCB-treated ISR did not translate into higher angiographic restenosis rates.
Subject(s)
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary , Coronary Restenosis , Drug-Eluting Stents , Humans , Everolimus , Coronary Restenosis/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Restenosis/etiology , Coronary Restenosis/therapy , Paclitaxel , Tomography, Optical Coherence , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/adverse effects , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/methods , Prospective Studies , Coronary Angiography , Metals , Treatment Outcome , Stents , Constriction, Pathologic/drug therapyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the outcomes of deferred coronary revascularization in patients with non-significant in-stent restenosis (ISR) by physiological assessment. BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology and natural history of ISR is markedly different from de-novo stenoses. There is a paucity of data on the safety of deferral of revascularization of ISR using physiological assessment. METHODS: In this single centre study, using a propensity-score matched analysis, we compared the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with ISR and de-novo disease deferred based on intracoronary physiology. Matching was on a 1:2 basis of ISR to de-novo stenosis. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) a composite of all-cause mortality, target lesion revascularization or target vessel myocardial infarction at 36 months. RESULTS: Matched cohorts of 56 ISR and 112 de-novo stenoses were analyzed. The median percentage stenosis was 50% in both groups (p = 0.403). Deferral was based on fractional flow reserve (FFR). The mean FFR was 0.86 across both groups (p = 0.942). At 36-months, freedom from MACE was similar between groups; 86.2% versus 92.8% log rank p=0.180 for ISR and de-novo lesions, respectively. Neither were there differences in the individual components of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: Deferral of coronary revascularization in patients with ISR based on its functional impact is associated to similar long-term safety as in de-novo coronary stenosis.
Subject(s)
Coronary Restenosis , Coronary Stenosis , Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial , Constriction, Pathologic/complications , Coronary Angiography/adverse effects , Coronary Restenosis/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Restenosis/etiology , Coronary Restenosis/therapy , Coronary Stenosis/complications , Coronary Stenosis/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Stenosis/therapy , Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial/physiology , Humans , Myocardial Revascularization/adverse effects , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Hypertension is the most prevalent cardiovascular risk factor worldwide and the leading cause of death and premature morbidity. Despite its prevalence, evaluation and management are nonuniform despite multiple society guidelines worldwide. Guidelines from scientific societies aim to provide standardized recommendations based on the scientific evidence available. In addition, several expert-based recommendations are provided in these documents, a situation that can lead to confusion. The scope of this manuscript is to briefly compare the recent updated guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension and their relevant differences, which are important to the practicing clinician.
Subject(s)
American Heart Association , Cardiology/standards , Hypertension/therapy , Perioperative Care/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Societies, Medical/standards , Cardiology/methods , Disease Management , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Hypertension/diagnostic imaging , Hypertension/epidemiology , Perioperative Care/methods , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Arterial Occlusive Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Angiography/methods , Electrocardiography/methodsABSTRACT
No disponible
