AIMS: Lumen enlargement during repeat percutaneous coronary intervention for in-stent restenosis has been shown to be the result of both stent over-expansion and decrease in neointimal tissue. How these two different mechanisms of action may influence outcome and target lesion revascularization after repeat intervention for in-stent restenosis is unclear. METHODS: Intravascular ultrasound guided repeat intervention for in-stent restenosis was carried out either with balloon angioplasty, or with a combination of rotational atherectomy plus balloon angioplasty. Clinical follow-up at 1 year, including death, myocardial infarction, or need for revascularization, was obtained. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included in this study; 40 were treated by balloon alone, and 30 by combination of rotational atherectomy plus balloon. Event-free survival probability was 76+/-5%. The mechanism of lumen enlargement, be it stent over-expansion or tissue removal, had no influence on long-term clinical evolution. The only independent predictor was the minimal lumen cross-sectional area at the end of the procedure, the larger the lumen cross-sectional area, the higher the event-free probability. The cut-off point of the lumen cross-sectional area was set at 4.7 mm(2)by discriminant analysis. Event-free survival was 69+/-15% in patients with <4.7 mm(2)lumen cross-sectional area and 91+/-8% in patients with >4.7 mm(2)lumen cross-sectional area (P=0. 008). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the only independent predictor of late clinical outcome after percutaneous re-intervention for in-stent restenosis was final lumen size, no matter which means were used to achieve it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
François Schiele (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: