Clinical variables related with in-stent restenosis late regression after bare metal coronary stenting.

UNLABELLED: In-stent restenosis (ISR) has an incidence between 20% and 30% using bare metal stents. ISR late regression phenomenon (ISRLR) has been previously described, but clinical variables related with this phenomenon remain unclear. The aim of the study was to identify the variables related with ISRLR. METHODS: We identified from our data base 30 patients between November 1995 and September 2002 that fulfilled the following criteria: 1) Documented ISR at follow-up angiography (CA-1); 2) treated medically; and 3) Referred for a second follow-up angiography (CA-2). at least 3 months after CA-1. ISRLR was defined as a > 0.2 mm increase in MLD between CA-1 and CA-2, calculated as the 2-fold of our inter-observer variability. ISR late progression was defined as a > 0.2 mm decrease in minimum lumen diameter (MLD) between CA-1 and CA-2. RESULTS: At the time of CA-2 only 2 patients (6.7%) had symptoms related with the previously stented vessel. We found a mean MLD of 1.03+/-0.34 mm and 1.54+/-0.48 mm at CA-1 and CA-2 respectively (AMLD = 0.51 +/-0.34 mm; p < 0.001). Twenty four patients (80.0%) had ISRLR. Two variables were related to the presence or absence ISRLR: Current smoking at the time of coronary stenting (70.8% vs 20.0% respectively, p = 0.026) and acute coronary syndrome as clinical indication for coronary stenting (and 83.5% vs 40.0% respectively, p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: ISRLR is a frequent phenomenon in patients with ISR treated medically, probably contributing to the benign long-term clinical outcome that has been previously described in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic ISR. Current smoking at the time of coronary stenting and acute coronary syndrome as clinical indication for coronary stenting are associated with this phenomenon.

[Side branch occlusion during direct stent implantation. Incidence and related factors]. / Compromiso de vasos secundarios durante la implantación directa de stent coronario. Incidencia y factores relacionados.

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the compromise of side branches when jailed by a coronary stent implanted without balloon predilation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 56 patients in which at least a coronary stent was implanted without balloon predilation and covering a side brach (58 stents, 1.04 +/- 0.19 per patient) were studied. The effect of direct coronary stent implantation over side branch flow, as well as the characteristics associated were studied. RESULTS: The main vessel was left anterior descending in 63%, left circumflex in 21%, right coronary in 14%, and left main in one case. An angiographic successful result in the main vessel was obtained in all cases. Coronary flow was TIMI 3, 2, 1, and 0 in 95%, 3%, 0%, and 2% before the procedure, in comparison with 86%, 2%, 3%, and 9% after stent implantation (p = 0.204). The incidence of side branch occlusion was 12% (7/58). In one case, the side branch was dilated across the stent struts, and thus the rate of side branch loss at the end of the procedure was 10% (6/58). In cases of side branch occlusion, there was a more severe stenosis at its origin before stent implantation (30.2 +/-31.3% vs 16.8 +/- 11.1%, p = 0.028). Fifty percent of side branches occluded after direct coronary stent implantation and angiographically re-evaluated at follow-up became patent, and 88% of side branches not affected after stent implantation remained patent at 6.2+/-1.9 months. CONCLUSION: The rate of side branch occlusion after direct stent implantation in our series was 12%, that is not different from that reported for conventional stent implantation. Thus, the decision of using direct or conventional coronary stenting should not be conditioned by the presence of side branches arising from the target lesion.

Compromiso de vasos secundarios durante la implantación directa de stent coronario: Incidencia y factores relacionados / Side branch occlusion during direct stent implantation: Incidence and related factors

Objetivo: El objetivo fue evaluar el grado de compromiso de las ramas que son enjauladas durante la implantación directa de stent. Pacientes y métodos: Se estudiaron 56 pacientes en los que se implantó al menos un stent coronario (58 stents) sin dilatación previa con balón y en los que se enjauló alguna rama secundaria. Se evaluó la tasa de pérdida de la rama, el efecto de la implantación del stent sobre el flujo de esta rama y los factores relacionados con estos hechos. Resultados: El vaso principal fue la descendente anterior en el 63%, la circunfleja en el 21%, la coronaria derecha en el 14% y el tronco principal de la coronaria izquierda en un caso. Se obtuvo éxito angiográfico sobre el vaso principal en todos los casos. Antes del procedimiento, el flujo a nivel de la rama secundaria era TIMI grado 3, 2 y 0 en 55 (95%), 2 (3%) y un caso (2%), respectivamente. Tras la implantación del stent, el flujo era TIMI grado 3, 2, 1 y 0 en 50 (86%), 1 (2%), 2 (3%) y 5 (9%) casos, respectivamente (p = 0.204). La incidencia de pérdida de la rama fue 12% (7/58); en un caso, se intentó con éxito recanalizar y dilatar ésta a través de los struts del stent, por lo que la tasa de pérdida de rama final fue 10% (6/ 58). Las ramas que se ocluyeron tenían un mayor grado de estenosis en el origen antes de la implantación del stent (30.2 ± 31.3% vs 16.8 ± 11.1%, p = 0.028). En los pacientes que se reevaluaron angiográficamente, a los 6.2 ±1.9 meses, el 50% de las ramas que se habían ocluido se encontraban permeables, y el 88% de las que no se comprometieron seguían permeables. Conclusiones: La tasa de oclusión de las ramas con la implantación directa de stent fue 12% en nuestra serie, cifra similar a la que ocurre con la implantación de stent tras dilatación con balón. Por tanto, la existencia de ramas localizadas en el segmento en el que va a implantarse el stent no tiene por qué condicionar la decisión o no de realizar una dilatación previa con balón.

Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the compromise of side branches when jailed by a coronary stent implanted without balloon predilation. Patients and methods: 56 patients in which at least a coronary stent was implanted without balloon predilation and covering a side brach (58 stents, 1.04 ± 0.19 per patient) were studied. The effect of direct coronary stent implantation over side branch flow, as well as the characteristics associated were studied. Results: The main vessel was left anterior descending in 63%, left circumflex in 21%, right coronary in 14%, and left main in one case. An angiographic successful result in the main vessel was obtained in all cases. Coronary flow was TIMI 3, 2, 1, and 0 in 95%, 3%, 0%, and 2% before the procedure, in comparison with 86%, 2%, 3%, and 9% after stent implantation (p = 0.204). The incidence of side branch occlusion was 12% (7/58). In one case, the side branch was dilated across the stent struts, and thus the rate of side branch loss at the end of the procedure was 10% (6/58). In cases of side branch occlusion, there was a more severe stenosis at its origin before stent implantation (30.2 ± 31.3% vs 16.8± 11.1%, p = 0.028). Fifty percent of side branches occluded after direct coronary stent implantation and angiographically reevaluated at follow-up became patent, and 88% of side branches not affected after stent implantation remained patent at 6.2 ± 1.9 months. Conclusion: The rate of side branch occlusion after direct stent implantation in our series was 12%, that is not different from that reported for conventional stent implantation. Thus, the decision of using direct or conventional coronary stenting should not be conditioned by the presence of side branches arising from the target lesion.