RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Lesion preparation with a cutting (CB) or scoring balloon (SB) is often used in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, there are no comparative studies. METHODS: We analyzed 81 patients (CB group: n = 38; SB group: n = 43) who had a calcified ISR from November 2019 to September 2021. The primary endpoint was strategy success (less than 20% residual stenosis); the secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events during the 1-year follow-up. Quantitative coronary angiography was performed to evaluate the strategy success. RESULTS: The patients in the CB group were more likely to have a severe calcified ISR (P = .001) and multiple stent layers (P = .001). A total of 64 patients (79.0%) reached the primary endpoint. Residual stenosis greater than 20% was more common in the CB group (39.5% vs 4.7%; P = .001). In the multivariate analysis, an effect of the intervention group on the achievement of the primary endpoint could be excluded (estimate 1.06; standard error 1.07; P = .322). The time interval of stent implantation prior to CB/SB (P = .007) and severe calcified ISR (P = .009) had a negative impact on reaching the primary endpoint. During the follow-up, there were no differences in rates of cardiac death (CB 2.5% vs. SB 1.2%; P = .598), acute myocardial infarction (CB 0% vs. SB 4.9%; P = .119), and target lesion failure (CB 3.7% vs SB 12.3%; P = .074). CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, multivariate analysis showed that lesion preparation with CB or SB must be considered equivalent in terms of angiographic results. Factors like severe calcified ISR and the time interval of prior stent implantation negatively influenced the angiographic outcome.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Modified balloon angioplasty (MB) using a cutting-/scoring balloon or intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is used in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, IVL is an off-label use in this setting. The aim of this subgroup analysis of an all-comers registry was to compare IVL to MB angioplasty in patients with ISR. METHODS: The subgroup (n = 117) included all patients with an ISR treated by MB or IVL between 2019 and 2021. Primary endpoint was strategy success (< 20% residual stenosis). The secondary endpoint was cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and target lesion failure/revascularization (TVR). Quantitative coronary angiography was performed in all patients. RESULTS: A total of n = 36 patients were treated by IVL and n = 81 patients by MB. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups. The primary endpoint was reached in 99 patients (84.6%). Patients in the IVL group had less residual stenosis (2.8% vs. 21.0%; p = 0.012). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that IVL had a significant positive effect on reaching the primary end point (Estimate 2.857; standard error (SE) 1.166; p = 0.014). During the follow-up period (450 days) there were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death (IVL n = 2 (1.7%) vs. MB n = 3 (2.6%); p = 0.643), AMI (IVL n = 2 (1.7%) vs. MB n = 4 (3.4%); p = 0.999) and TVR (IVL n = 5 (4.3%) vs. MB n = 14 (12%); p = 0.851). CONCLUSION: IVL results in a significantly lower rate of residual stenosis than MB in patients with ISR. During the long-term follow-up, no differences in rates of cardiac death, AMI or TVR were observed.