Why the study?
Does everolimus-eluting stent implantation improve angiographic in-stent late loss in patients with bare metal in-stent restenosis?
Does everolimus-eluting stent implantation improve angiographic in-stent late loss in patients with bare metal in-stent restenosis?
Everolimus-eluting stent implantation for bare metal in-stent restenosis is safe and associated with acceptable angiographic late loss and low recurrence rates of restenosis at 9 months.
Acceptable late loss with everolimus-eluting stents for bare metal restenosis; supports further randomized trials but should not yet change practice.
AIMS: Restenosis is a frequent complication of coronary stent implantation, especially bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. The everolimus-eluting stent (EES) has previously been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of de novo lesions. We performed this study to evaluate clinical, angiographic and IVUS results after EES implantation for the treatment of BMS ISR. XERES was a prospective, multicentre, nationwide study, enrolling 97 consecutive patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) after BMS implantation across 20 centres in France. Suitable lesions had a reference vessel diameter between 2.5 mm and 4 mm, a length ≤22 mm and a diameter stenosis between 50 and 100%. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-stent late loss (LL) as determined by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at nine-month follow-up. QCA was required to be performed in each included patient and IVUS was performed in a subgroup of 27 patients. At nine-month follow-up, the in-stent late loss was 0.35±0.63 mm. The rate of in-stent binary restenosis was 12.22%, including two complete occlusions. The average volume of neointimal hyperplasia was 15.6±9.9 mm3. The in-stent percent volume obstruction was 8.5±5.2%. The in-segment percent area and diameter obstruction were 32±17% and 27±11%, respectively. Two initial malappositions were persistent and two other patients had late acquired stent malapposition. The cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 10.1%. EES for the treatment of bare metal in-stent restenosis seemed safe and efficacious.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carrié et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: