Treatment of Patients With Recurrent Coronary In-stent Restenosis With Failed Intravascular Brachytherapy.

Intravascular brachytherapy (VBT) is an effective and safe treatment option for recurrent drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, the optimal therapy for patients with failed VBT is not well-defined. In this study, we sought to evaluate the optimal treatment strategy for patients after a failed VBT. Patients with recurrent ISR after an initial unsuccessful VBT were identified from our percutaneous coronary intervention database. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts (standard treatment with DES or balloon angioplasty versus repeat VBT). Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes during follow-up were extracted. A total of 279 patients underwent PCI after an initial unsuccessful VBT at our institution. Of those, 215 (77%) patients underwent standard treatment with balloon angioplasty with or without DES, and 64 (33%) underwent balloon angioplasty followed by repeat VBT. The mean age of the cohort was 64±11 years. Overall, 71% were men, 47% had diabetes, and 22% had heart failure. The majority (64%) presented with unstable angina. The groups had similar baseline characteristics. The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) was significantly lower in the repeat VBT group at 1 year (31% vs 14%, p = 0.03), 2 years (51% vs 31%, p = 0.03), and 3 years (57% vs 41%, p = 0.08). Target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization were consistently lower in the repeat VBT group at all follow-up intervals than in the standard treatment group. Treatment of recalcitrant ISR following an initial failed VBT is associated with a high MACE rate at 3-year follow-up. Repeat VBT is safe and effective and should be considered as the preferred strategy.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relations that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this report.