Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation versus beta-irradiation for the treatment of in-stent restenotic lesions: clinical and ultrasound results from a randomised trial.

AIMS: Recent trials with different designs indicated that drug-eluting stents may be superior to vascular brachytherapy (VBT) for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). We performed a randomised, double-centre, clinical, quantitative coronary angiographic (QCA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) acute and 3-years comparison of 90Sr/90Y-VBT and sirolimus-eluting stent implantation (SES) for ISR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-one (91) consecutive patients were included. By QCA, SES led to a higher acute gain (2.08 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.54 ± 0.70 mm, p < 0.0001), higher postprocedural minimum lumen diameter (2.76 ± 0.39 mm vs. 2.39 ± 0.52 mm; p < 0.0001), lower late lumen loss at follow-up (0.09 ± 0.29 vs. 0.39 ± 0.79 mm, p = 0.042), and a higher net lumen gain of the target lesion (2.05 ± 0.51 vs 1.18 ± 1.08 mm, p < 0.0001). By IVUS, the smaller acute gain following VBT was the result of residual intima hyperplasia, the intima hyperplasia formation following SES was extremely low, and the edge-effect was virtually absent after SES, respectively. At 6-month follow-up, both the angiographic restenosis rate (4.7 vs. 22.7%; p < 0.0001) and target lesion revascularisation rate (2.3 vs. 10.4%; p = 0.025) were lower in SES. Importantly, SES showed a stable clinical course at 3-year follow-up while VBT was associated with a sustained incidence of target vessel failure (11.6 vs. 46.7%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: SES for ISR is associated with superior QCA, IVUS and clinical results at 6-month and 3-year of follow-up when compared with VBT.

Late and very late catch-up after 90Sr/90Y beta-irradiation for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis.

Since late vessel failure has been speculated as a significant limitation of vascular brachytherapy (VBT), we conducted a prospective clinical evaluation at 6, 12, 24, 36 and 60 months follow-up after irradiation with (90)Sr/(90)Y for in-stent restenosis (ISR) regardless of the patient's symptomatic status. Complete five-year follow-up is reported for 104 consecutive patients. The cumulative rate of death was 13.5% (6 months: 0.96%; 12 months: 2.88%; 24 months: 4.81%; 36 months: 7.69%), of acute myocardial infarction 4.81% (2.88%; 4.81%; 4.81%; 4.81%), of late thrombotic occlusion 4.81% (3.85%; 4.81%; 4.81%; 4.81%), of target lesion revascularization (TLR) 27.9% (8.65%; 12.5%; 17.3%; 21.2%), of target vessel revascularization (TVR) 43.3% (12.5%; 19.2%; 22.1%; 29.8%), and of all major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) 61.5% (16.3%; 26.9%; 31.7%; 42.3%), respectively. Considered that the annual incidence of TVR after the first year following drug-eluting stenting for in-stent restenosis has been reported as approximately 3% per year, an incidence of 5.8% per year following VBT of our study population clearly indicates a more pronounced, delayed and, even in the fifth year after the index procedure, ongoing restenotic process following beta-irradiation of in-stent restenotic lesions associated with clinically relevant adverse cardiovascular events.

CD34+CD140b+ cells and circulating CXCL12 correlate with the angiographically assessed severity of cardiac allograft vasculopathy.

AIMS: We sought to determine whether circulating vascular progenitor cells, such as endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) or smooth muscle progenitor cells (SPCs), were associated with the severity of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV). METHODS AND RESULTS: CD34(+)CD140b(+) SPCs and CD34(+)KDR(+) EPCs were measured in the peripheral circulation of 187 adult heart transplant recipients by flow cytometry. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy was quantified by angiography using a CAV-specific scoring system. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy was present in 84 patients (44.7%) and was classified as mild in 59 and severe in 25 cases. Circulating SPCs were more frequently detectable in CAV patients than in patients without CAV. The number of CD34(+)CD140b(+) cells showed a stepwise increase in patients with moderate and severe CAV. Smooth muscle progenitor cell counts were higher in patients with coronary stent implant compared with unstented patients with CAV. In contrast, peripheral CD34(+)KDR(+) EPC counts were not changed in CAV patients. Plasma CXCL12 levels correlated with the degree of CAV and SPC counts. None of the different immunosuppressive drug regimes was related to the SPC count or the CXCL12 levels. A multivariate regression analysis revealed that the SPC count was independently associated with the presence of CAV. CONCLUSION: Circulating SPCs, but not EPCs, and plasma CXCL12 concentrations are elevated in CAV patients, indicating that they play prominent roles in transplant arteriosclerosis.

Three-year clinical follow-up after strontium-90/yttrium-90 beta-irradiation for the treatment of in-stent coronary restenosis.

Because late vessel failure has been speculated as a possible limitation of vascular brachytherapy, we conducted a prospective clinical evaluation at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months of follow-up after irradiation with strontium-90/yttrium-90 for in-stent restenosis, regardless of the patient's symptomatic status. We report complete 3-year follow-up data for 106 consecutive patients. The cumulative rate of death at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 0.9%, 0.9%, 0.9%, and 1.9% respectively. The corresponding rates for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction were 2.8%, 4.7%, 4.7%, and 4.7%, respectively. The cumulative rate of late thrombotic occlusion at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 3.8%, 4.7%, 4.7%, and 4.7%, respectively. The corresponding rates of target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization were 8.5% and 12.3% (p = 0.046), 14.2% (p = 0.157) and 18.0% (p = 0.046), 12.3% and 18.9% (p = 0.008), and 21.7% (p = 0.083) and 29.2% (p = 0.005), respectively. The cumulative rate of all major adverse cardiovascular events at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 16.1%, 24.5% (p = 0.003), 27.4% (p = 0.083), and 35.8% (p = 0.003), respectively. In conclusion, these results indicate a delayed and, even in the third year after the index procedure, continued restenotic process after beta irradiation of in-stent restenotic lesions.

Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation and beta-irradiation for the treatment of in-stent restenotic lesions: comparison of underlying mechanisms of acute gain and late loss as assessed by volumetric intravascular ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare the angioplasty mechanisms of drug (sirolimus)-eluting stent (DES) implantation and vascular brachytherapy (VBT) for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) as assessed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). METHODS: We performed IVUS in 53 patients (28 DES, 25 VBT) before and after angioplasty of ISR and at 6-month follow-up. Cross-sectional areas of the external elastic membrane, the stent, and the lumen were measured. Plaque + media, peristent plaque, and intimal hyperplasia areas were calculated, respectively. RESULTS: Clinical and IVUS baseline characteristics did not differ between groups at baseline. After the index procedure, the lumen at the stent site was smaller in the DES group (DES 6.7 +/- 2.0 mm2 vs VBT 7.5 +/- 2.2 mm2, P = .042). Because of less intimal hyperplasia (DES 0.2 +/- 0.5 mm2 vs VBT 0.7 +/- 0.7 mm2, P = .043), the lumen dimensions revealed no difference between groups at follow-up (DES 6.5 +/- 2.3 mm2 vs VBT 6.8 +/- 2.2 mm2, P = .374). At the reference site, the index procedure led to a similar increase of plaque + media (DES 0.9 +/- 0.9 mm2 vs VBT 0.6 +/- 1.2 mm2, P = .150). At follow-up, the plaque + media was significantly smaller in the DES group (DES 8.0 +/- 6.6 mm2 vs VBT 9.9 +/- 7.8 mm2, P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: Drug-eluting stent for the treatment of ISR more effectively inhibits neointima formation when compared with VBT. Yet insufficient stent expansion might be a reason for device failure and should be avoided. At the reference site, lumen loss by an increased plaque burden, as has been well recognized following VBT, is not present with DES.

Comparison of acute and long-term results and underlying mechanisms from sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of in-stent restenosis and recurrent in-stent restenosis in patients in whom intracoronary radiation failed as assessed by intravascular ultrasound.

In-stent restenosis (ISR), especially after vascular brachytherapy, is a therapeutic challenge. Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation is a promising new option for the treatment of patients with ISR. The efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of patients with their first episodes of ISR and with recurrent ISR due to the failure of vascular brachytherapy was compared using intravascular ultrasound imaging.

Are high doses of intracoronary adenosine an alternative to standard intravenous adenosine for the assessment of fractional flow reserve?

BACKGROUND: Achievement of maximal hyperemia of the coronary microcirculation is a prerequisite for the measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR). Intravenous adenosine is considered the standard method, but its use in the catheterization laboratory is time consuming and expensive compared with intracoronary adenosine. Therefore, this study compared different high, intracoronary doses of adenosine for the potential to achieve a maximal hyperemia equivalent to the standard intravenous route. METHODS: FFR was assessed in 50 patients with 50 intermediate lesions during cardiac catheterization. FFR was calculated as the ratio of the distal coronary pressure to the aortic pressure at hyperemia. Different incremental doses of intracoronary adenosine (60, 90, 120, and 150 microg as boli) and a standard intravenous infusion of 140 microg/kg/min were administered in a randomized fashion. RESULTS: Different incremental doses of intracoronary adenosine were well tolerated, with fewer systemic adverse effects than intravenous adenosine. At baseline, there were no significant differences for mean aortic and distal coronary pressure or heart rate in the different adenosine doses and routes. FFR decreased with increasing adenosine doses, with the lowest values observed with the 150-microg intracoronary bolus and 140-microg/kg/min dose of intravenous adenosine. All intracoronary doses, except the 150-microg bolus, resulted in mean FFR values that were significantly (P <.05) higher than FFR after the administration intravenous adenosine. Furthermore, 5 patients (10%) with a FFR value >0.75 and 3 subjects (6%) with a FFR value >0.80 who received a 60-microg intracoronary bolus reached a value below the cutoff point of 0.75 with the intravenous administration. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a dose-response relationship on hyperemia for intracoronary adenosine doses >60 microg. The administration of very high intracoronary adenosine boli is safe and associated with fewer systemic adverse effects than standard intravenous adenosine. However, intravenous adenosine administration with 140 microg/kg/min produced a more pronounced hyperemia than intracoronary adenosine in most patients and should be the preferred mode of application for the assessment of FFR.