Comparison of Outcome After Stenting for De Novo Versus Restenotic Narrowings in Native Coronary Arteries

Intracoronary stenting of de novo narrowings results in a lower restenosis rate when compared with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. We sought to determine whether intracoronary stenting for restenotic narrowings is associated with a worse outcome when compared with stenting for de novo narrowings. A total of 114 consecutive patients with 124 narrowings were retrospectively identified. Stents were deployed in 46 de novo (37%) and in 78 restenotic (63%) narrowings. The 2 groups were similar with respect to variables known to affect restenosis. Follow-up angiograms were available in 88% of patients at a mean of 6.3 +/- 3.3 months after stent implantation. At follow-up angiography, a significantly higher restenosis rate in the restenotic group was observed (p = 0.05). Restenosis risk could not be predicted from variables known at the time of stent implantation. However, the presence of angina at the time of follow-up was significantly associated with restenosis (p = 0.01). Kaplan-Meier survival curves for freedom from repeat target-site revascularization demonstrated a significant difference in the need for target-site revascularization between the de novo and restenotic groups over the first-year post-stent implantation (p = 0.01; relative risk = 1.94). Multivariate analysis identified restenosis as the indication for stenting (p <0.01), postprocedure percent stenosis (p = 0.01), and narrowing length (p = 0.01) as independent predictors for repeat target-site revascularization. When compared with de novo narrowings, restenotic narrowings have a worse outcome after stenting. A prospective, randomized trial comparing outcome after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and stents for restenotic narrowings would be useful.