PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 25, 2001New England Journal of Medicine654 citationsOpen Access

Localized Intracoronary Gamma-Radiation Therapy to Inhibit the Recurrence of Restenosis after Stenting

View Full Paper
MLMartin B. LeonPTPaul S. TeirsteinJMJeffrey W. Moses

Key Result

Intracoronary radiation therapy with iridium-192 reduced the composite of death, MI, and target lesion revascularization compared to placebo (28.2% vs 43.8%, P=0.02).

Study Design

Type

RCT (n=252)

Blinding

Double-blind

Randomization

randomized

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does an indwelling intracoronary ribbon containing iridium-192 reduce the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization in patients with in-stent restenosis?

P
Population
252 patients with in-stent restenosis
I
Intervention
Indwelling intracoronary ribbon containing a sealed source of iridium-192
C
Comparator
Similar-appearing nonradioactive ribbon (placebo)
O
Outcome
Composite of death, myocardial infarction, and the need for repeated revascularization of the target lesion during nine months of follow-upcomposite

Intracoronary gamma-radiation therapy with iridium-192 reduces clinical restenosis and target lesion revascularization but increases the risk of late thrombosis and myocardial infarction.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 28.2% vs 43.8%

p-value: p=0.02

Limitations

  • Associated with a higher rate of late thrombosis, resulting in an increased risk of myocardial infarction.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the frequency of restenosis after coronary angioplasty is reduced by stenting, when restenosis develops within a stent, the risk of subsequent restenosis is greater than 50 percent. We report on a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of intracoronary radiation therapy for the treatment of in-stent restenosis. METHODS: Of 252 eligible patients in whom in-stent restenosis had developed, 131 were randomly assigned to receive an indwelling intracoronary ribbon containing a sealed source of iridium-192, and 121 were assigned to receive a similar-appearing nonradioactive ribbon (placebo). RESULTS: The primary end point, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and the need for repeated revascularization of the target lesion during nine months of follow-up, occurred in 53 patients assigned to placebo (43.8 percent) and 37 patients assigned to iridium-192 (28.2 percent, P=0.02). However, the reduction in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events was determined solely by a diminished need for revascularization of the target lesion, not by reductions in the incidence of death or myocardial infarction. Late thrombosis occurred in 5.3 percent of the iridium-192 group, as compared with 0.8 percent of the placebo group (P=0.07), resulting in more late myocardial infarctions in the iridium-192 group (9.9 percent vs. 4.1 percent, P=0.09). Late thrombosis occurred in irradiated patients only after the discontinuation of oral antiplatelet therapy (with ticlopidine or clopidogrel) and only in patients who had received new stents at the time of radiation treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary irradiation with iridium-192 resulted in lower rates of clinical and angiographic restenosis, although it was also associated with a higher rate of late thrombosis, resulting in an increased risk of myocardial infarction. If the problem of late thrombosis within the stent can be overcome, intracoronary irradiation with iridium-192 may become a useful approach to the treatment of in-stent restenosis.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Leon et al. (2001) conducted an RCT in in-stent restenosis (n=252). Intracoronary radiation therapy (iridium-192 ribbon) vs. Nonradioactive ribbon (placebo) was evaluated on Composite of death, myocardial infarction, and the need for repeated revascularization of the target lesion (p=0.02). Intracoronary radiation therapy with iridium-192 reduced the composite of death, MI, and target lesion revascularization compared to placebo (28.2% vs 43.8%, P=0.02).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a167cbf51b6ba61365d44dehttps://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200101253440402
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper