Why the study?
Although in-stent restenosis (ISR) portends worse prognosis and higher BMI is linked to better outcomes after PCI, whether the prognostic impact of ISR varies across BMI categories was unclear.
Does in-stent restenosis increase the risk of MACE compared to non-ISR lesions in patients undergoing PCI across different BMI categories?
Does in-stent restenosis increase the risk of MACE compared to non-ISR lesions in patients undergoing PCI across different BMI categories?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In-stent restenosis is associated with a consistently increased risk of 1-year MACE compared to de novo lesions, driven by target vessel revascularization, regardless of the patient's body mass index.
Background Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in‐stent restenosis (ISR) is related with a worse prognosis, while higher body mass index (BMI) values are associated with better outcomes. It is unclear whether the prognostic impact of ISR varies in function of BMI. Methods Patients undergoing PCI at a large center from 2012 to 2019 not presenting with an acute myocardial infarction (MI) were included. Subjects with BMI < 18.5 kg/m 2 or treated with bare metal stents were excluded. Patients were stratified according to type of lesion treated (ISR vs. no‐ISR) and into four BMI categories: normal weight (BMI 18.5–25 kg/m 2 ), overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m 2 ), class I obesity (30.0–34.9 kg/m 2 ), class II–III obesity (≥35.0 kg/m 2 ). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all‐cause death, MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year. Results Out of 16,234 patients, 3694 (23%) underwent PCI for ISR. ISR as compared to no‐ISR was associated with a consistent increased risk of MACE within the normal weight (18.8% vs. 7.8%, adj. hazard ratio (HR): 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51–2.64), overweight (19.1% vs. 6.4%, adj. HR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.91–2.88), class I obesity (18.3% vs. 6.8%, adj. HR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.47–2.57), and class II–III obesity (16.4% vs. 7.4%, adj. HR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.09–2.37) groups (interaction p ‐value: 0.192). The ISR‐related risks were mostly driven by an excess of TVR. Conclusions At 1 year, ISR was associated with an increased risk of MACE irrespective of BMI, mostly due to an excess of TVR after ISR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jones et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: