Comparison between sirolimus-eluting stents and intracoronary catheter-based beta radiation for the treatment of in-stent restenosis.

We report the outcomes of patients who had in-stent restenosis (IRS) that was treated with intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT) or sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation. The benefit of IVBT for treating ISR is well documented. SES implantation decreases first-time ISR and, in preliminary reports, has been used to treat ISR. Fifty consecutive patients who had ISR were treated; the first 25 patients underwent SES implantation and the next 25 patients were treated with IVBT using a beta-Cath System (a 40-mm strontium-90/yttrium-90 source). Quantitative angiographic and intravascular ultrasound follow-up were performed at 5.2 +/- 1.1 and 12.1 +/- 1.2 months; clinical follow-up was performed at 15 months. SES deployment and IVBT were successful in all patients. At 12-month follow-up, 8 patients who underwent IVBT had angiographic recurrence (4 in the stent and 4 at the stent edge); only 1 patient who underwent SES implantation developed recurrent ISR. At 12 months, in-stent late luminal loss was similar between the SES and IVBT groups (0.35 +/- 0.45 vs 0.34 +/- 0.46 mm, p = 0.9); however, in-stent net luminal gain was higher in the SES group than in the IVBT group (1.32 +/- 0.13 vs 0.57 +/- 0.19 mm, p <0.0001), and in-lesion late luminal loss was higher in the IVBT group (0.48 +/- 0.32 vs 0.16 +/- 0.42 mm, p = 0.004). At 12 months, intravascular ultrasound stent volume obstruction was higher after IVBT versus than after SES implantation (38.7% vs 6.7%, p <0.0001). At 15-month clinical follow-up, 64% and 96% (p <0.01) of patients who underwent IVBT and SES implantation, respectively, were free of major adverse cardiac events. In conclusion SES implantation for the treatment of ISR was effective and superior to catheter-based IVBT in preventing recurrent neointimal proliferation and angiographic restenosis at 1-year follow-up.

The usefulness of intracoronary ultrasound in the treatment decision-making of patients with ambiguous lesions in the left main coronary artery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of surgical treatment approach vs. conservative approach in patients with ambiguous lesions in the left main coronary artery (LMCA), based on intracoronary ultrasound (ICUS) findings. METHODS: Sixty-six consecutive patients with angiographically ambiguous lesions were included and submitted to ICUS assessment. They were divided in two groups, according to the ICUS findings. Group I was maintained under clinical treatment [minimal lumen area (MLA) > 6.0 mm(2) and/or minimal lumen diameter (MLD) > 2.5 mm] and Group II was submitted to revascularization (MLA < 6.0 mm(2) and/or MLD < 2.5 mm). The occurrence of major cardiac events (death, acute myocardial infarction and/or revascularization of the target lesion) was assessed during follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-one (62%) patients were allocated in Group I and 25 (38%) in Group II. Mean follow-up was 42.1 months. The coronary angiography did not differentiate the two groups regarding lesion severity (MLD 1.98 mm in Group I vs. 1.72 mm in Group II; p = 0.75) in opposition to ICUS (MLD 3.41 mm in Group I vs. 2.01 mm in Group II; p < 0.001). There was no death or myocardial infarction in Group I. The survival rate free of major cardiac events was 95% in Group I vs. 87.5% in Group II (p=ns). CONCLUSION: Treatment decision-making of patients with ambiguous lesions in the LMCA guided by ICUS findings showed to be safe and effective.

Utilidade do ultra-som intracoronariano na decisão do tratamento de pacientes com lesões duvidosas no tronco da coronária esquerda / The usefulness of intracoronary ultrasound in the treatment decision-making of patients with ambiguous lesions in the left main coronary artery

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a segurança e eficácia da estratégia de tratamento cirúrgico ou conservador em pacientes com de lesões duvidosas de tronco da coronária esquerda (TCE), baseada nos achados do ultra-som intracoronariano (USIC). MÉTODOS: Incluídos 66 pacientes consecutivos com lesões angiograficamente duvidosas no TCE submetidos a avaliação ao USIC. Foram divididos em dois grupos de acordo com os achados do USIC. Grupo I, mantidos em tratamento clínico [área mínima da luz (AML) > 6,0 mm² e/ou diâmetro mínimo da luz (DML) > 2,5 mm] e Grupo II, encaminhados a revascularização (AML < 6,0 mm² e/ou DML < 2,5 mm). Avaliou-se a ocorrência de eventos cardíacos maiores (óbito, infarto agudo do miocárdio e/ou revascularização da lesão alvo) durante a evolução. RESULTADOS: Quarenta e um (62 por cento) pacientes foram alocados no Grupo I e 25 (38 por cento) no Grupo II. A média de seguimento foi de 42,1 meses. A angiografia coronariana não conseguiu diferenciar os dois grupos pela gravidade da lesão (DML 1,98 mm Grupo I versus 1,72 mm Grupo II, p = 0,75) ao contrário do USIC (DML 3,41 mm Grupo I versus 2,01 mm Grupo II, p < 0,001). Não houve óbito ou infarto do miocárdio no Grupo I. A sobrevida livre de eventos cardíacos maiores foi de 95 por cento no grupo I versus 87,5 por cento no Grupo II (p=ns). CONCLUSÃO: A estratégia de decisão de tratamento de pacientes com lesões angiograficamente duvidosas no TCE, guiada pelos achado do USIC, mostrou-se segura e eficaz.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of surgical treatment approach vs. conservative approach in patients with ambiguous lesions in the left main coronary artery (LMCA), based on intracoronary ultrasound (ICUS) findings. METHODS: Sixty-six consecutive patients with angiographically ambiguous lesions were included and submitted to ICUS assessment. They were divided in two groups, according to the ICUS findings. Group I was maintained under clinical treatment [minimal lumen area (MLA) > 6.0 mm² and/or minimal lumen diameter (MLD) > 2.5 mm] and Group II was submitted to revascularization (MLA < 6.0 mm² and/or MLD < 2.5 mm). The occurrence of major cardiac events (death, acute myocardial infarction and/or revascularization of the target lesion) was assessed during follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-one (62 percent) patients were allocated in Group I and 25 (38 percent) in Group II. Mean follow-up was 42.1 months. The coronary angiography did not differentiate the two groups regarding lesion severity (MLD 1.98 mm in Group I vs. 1.72 mm in Group II; p = 0.75) in opposition to ICUS (MLD 3.41 mm in Group I vs. 2.01 mm in Group II; p < 0.001). There was no death or myocardial infarction in Group I. The survival rate free of major cardiac events was 95 percent in Group I vs. 87.5 percent in Group II (p=ns). CONCLUSION: Treatment decision-making of patients with ambiguous lesions in the LMCA guided by ICUS findings showed to be safe and effective.