PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 1, 2014Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions77 citations

Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis Across 3-Stent Generations

View Full Paper
MMMarco A. MagalhãesSMSa’ar MinhaFCFang Chen

Key Points

  • To assess clinical presentation patterns and 6-month prognostic outcomes of in-stent restenosis across bare metal stents, first-generation drug-eluting stents, and second-generation drug-eluting stents.
  • Analyzed 909 patients with 1,077 in-stent restenosis lesions treated with bare metal stents (n=388), first-generation drug-eluting stents (n=425), or second-generation drug-eluting stents (n=96).

Structured PICO

Does the clinical presentation and outcome of in-stent restenosis differ across bare metal stents, first-generation DES, and second-generation DES?

P
Population
909 patients (1077 in-stent restenosis lesions) undergoing target lesion revascularization
I
Intervention
First-generation (n=425) and second-generation (n=96) drug-eluting stents (DES)
C
Comparator
Bare metal stents (n=388)
O
Outcome
Clinical presentation mode (ACS vs non-ACS) at the time of first target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiac events (death, MI, and re-target lesion revascularization) at 6 monthscomposite

Clinical presentation of in-stent restenosis is similar across stent generations, and presentation as an acute coronary syndrome independently predicts worse 6-month outcomes.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical presentation of bare metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients undergoing target lesion revascularization is well characterized and negatively affects on outcomes, whereas the presentation and outcomes of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) remains under-reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study included 909 patients (1077 ISR lesions) distributed as follows: bare metal stent (n=388), first-generation DES (n=425), and second-generation DES (n=96), categorized into acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or non-ACS presentation mode at the time of first target lesion revascularization. ACS was further classified as myocardial infarction (MI) and unstable angina. For bare metal stent, first-generation DES and second-generation DES, ACS was the clinical presentation in 67.8%, 71.0%, and 66.7% of patients, respectively (P=0.470), whereas MI occurred in 10.6%, 10.1%, and 5.2% of patients, respectively (P=0.273). The correlates for MI as ISR presentation were current smokers (odds ratio, 3.02; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.78-5.13; P<0.001), and chronic renal failure (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.60-4.70; P<0.001), with a protective trend for the second-generation DES ISR (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-1.03; P=0.060). ACS presentations had an independent effect on major adverse cardiac events (death, MI, and re-target lesion revascularization) at 6 months (MI versus non-ACS: adjusted hazard ratio, 4.06; 95% CI, 1.84-8.94; P<0.001; unstable angina versus non-ACS: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.01-3.87; P=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: ISR clinical presentation is similar irrespective of stent type. MI as ISR presentation seems to be associated with patient and not device-related factors. ACS as ISR presentation has an independent effect on major adverse cardiac events, suggesting that ISR remains a hazard and should be minimized.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Magalhães et al. (2014) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a8553b573102ab9cdb5508bhttps://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.114.001341
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper