Prosthetic carotid bypass graft for in-stent restenosis performed for post-endarterectomy recurrent stenosis: technical details

Aim. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is the treatment of choice for recurrent stenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However a significative incidence of in-stent restenosis could be occurred. Despite classical CEA leads to good results, in selective cases bypass graft may be the best treatment of in-stent restenosis. Case reports. We describe two cases of carotid bypass graft performed to treat a recurrent in-stent stenosis after CAS for post-CEA restenosis. No death and cardiac complication occurred and no cranial nerves impairment was detected. Conclusion. Prosthetic bypass graft is safe and effective in treatment of in-stent recurrent restenosis after CEA restenosis.

In-stent restenosis. Acute and long-term outcomes after excimer laser coronary angioplasty

OBJETIVE: With the increased use of intracoronary stents, in-stent restenosis has become a clinically significant drawback in invasive cardiology. We retrospectively assessed the short- and long-term outcomes after excimer laser coronary angioplasty of in-stent restenosis. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with 33 incidents of in-stent restenosis treated with excimer laser coronary angioplasty (ELCA) were analyzed. Sixty-six percent were males, mean age of 73±11 years, and 83% were functional class III-IV (NYHA). ELCA was performed using 23 concentric and 10 eccentric catheters with a diameter of 1.6-2.2 mm, followed by balloon angioplasty (PTCA) and ultrasound monitoring. The procedure was performed in the following vessels: left anterior descending artery, 10; left circumflex artery, 8; right coronary artery, 6; left main coronary artery, 2; and venous bypass graft, 7. RESULTS: The ELCA was successful in 71% of the cases, and PTCA was 100% successful. The diameter of the treated vessels was 3.44±0.5mm; the minimal luminal diameter (MLD) increased from 0.30mm pre-ECLA to 1.97mm post-ELCA, and to 2.94mm post-PTCA (p<0.001). The percent stenosis was reduced from 91.4±9.5% before ECLA to 42.3±14.9% after ELCA and to 14.6 ± 9.3% after PTCA (p<0.001). Seventeen (68%) patients were asymptomatic at 6 months and 15 (60%) at 1 year. New restenosis rates were 8/33 (24.2%) at 6 months and 9 /33 (27.3%) at 12 months. CONCLUSION: ELCA is safe and effective for the treatment of in-stent restenosis. In the present sample, a slight increase in new restenotic lesions between 6 and 12 months was found.

Diagnostic accuracy of coronary in-stent restenosis using 64-slice computed tomography: comparison with invasive coronary angiography

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of coronary binary in-stent restenosis (ISR) with angiography using 64-slice multislice computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA). BACKGROUND: A noninvasive detection of ISR would result in an easier and safer way to conduct patient follow-up. METHODS: We performed CTCA in 81 patients after stent implantation, and 125 stented lesions were scanned. Two sets of images were reconstructed with different types of convolution kernels. On CTCA, neointimal proliferation was visually evaluated according to luminal contrast attenuation inside the stent. Lesions were graded as follows: grade 1, none or slight neointimal proliferation; grade 2, neointimal proliferation with no significant stenosis (<50%); grade 3, neointimal proliferation with moderate stenosis (> or =50%); and grade 4, neointimal proliferation with severe stenosis (> or =75%). Grades 3 and 4 were considered binary ISR. The diagnostic accuracy of CTCA compared with ICA was evaluated. RESULTS: By ICA, 24 ISRs were diagnosed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 92%, 81%, 54%, and 98% for the overall population, whereas values were 91%, 93%, 77%, and 98% when excluding unassessable segments (15 segments, 12%). For assessable segments, CTCA correctly diagnosed 20 of the 22 ISRs detected by ICA. Six lesions without ISR were overestimated as ISR by CTCA. As the grade of neointimal proliferation by CTCA increases, the median value of percent diameter stenosis increased linearly. CONCLUSIONS: Binary ISR can be excluded with high probability by CTCA, with a moderate rate of false-positive results.

Percutaneous coronary interventional strategies for treatment of in-stent restenosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents is the standard of care for treatment of native coronary artery stenoses, but optimum treatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) have not been established. We aimed to compare and rank percutaneous treatment strategies for ISR. METHODS We did a network meta-analysis to synthesise both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for randomised controlled trials published up to Oct 31, 2014, of different PCI strategies for treatment of any type of coronary ISR. The primary outcome was percent diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014191. FINDINGS We deemed 27 trials eligible, including 5923 patients, with follow-up ranging from 6 months to 60 months after the index intervention. Angiographic follow-up was available for 4975 (84%) of 5923 patients 6-12 months after the intervention. PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was the most effective treatment for percent diameter stenosis, with a difference of -9·0% (95% CI -15·8 to -2·2) versus drug-coated balloons (DCB), -9·4% (-17·4 to -1·4) versus sirolimus-eluting stents, -10·2% (-18·4 to -2·0) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents, -19·2% (-28·2 to -10·4) versus vascular brachytherapy, -23·4% (-36·2 to -10·8) versus bare metal stents, -24·2% (-32·2 to -16·4) versus balloon angioplasty, and -31·8% (-44·8 to -18·6) versus rotablation. DCB were ranked as the second most effective treatment, but without significant differences from sirolimus-eluting (-0·2% [95% CI -6·2 to 5·6]) or paclitaxel-eluting (-1·2% [-6·4 to 4·2]) stents. INTERPRETATION These findings suggest that two strategies should be considered for treatment of any type of coronary ISR: PCI with everolimus-eluting stents because of the best angiographic and clinical outcomes, and DCB because of its ability to provide favourable results without adding a new stent layer. FUNDING None.

Intracoronary brachytherapy in the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Initial experience in Brazil

Intracoronary brachytherapy using beta or gamma radiation is currently the most efficient type of therapy for preventing the recurrence of coronary in-stent restenosis. Its implementation depends on the interaction among interventionists, radiotherapists, and physicists to assure the safety and quality of the method. The authors report the pioneering experience in Brazil of the treatment of 2 patients with coronary in-stent restenosis, in whom beta radiation was used as part of the international multicenter randomized PREVENT study (Proliferation REduction with Vascular ENergy Trial). The procedures were performed rapidly and did not require significant modifications in the traditional techniques used for conventional angioplasty. Alteration in the radiological protection devices of the hemodynamic laboratory were also not required, showing that intracoronary brachytherapy using beta radiation can be incorporated into the interventional tools of cardiology in our environment.

Clinical Coronary In-Stent Restenosis Follow-Up after Treatment and Analyses of Clinical Outcomes

Background: Clinical in-stent restenosis (CISR) is the main limitation of coronary angioplasty with stent implantation. Objective: Describe the clinical and angiographic characteristics of CISR and the outcomes over a minimum follow-up of 12 months after its diagnosis and treatment. Methods: We analyzed in 110 consecutive patients with CISR the clinical presentation, angiographic characteristics, treatment and combined primary outcomes (cardiovascular death, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction [AMI]) and combined secondary (unstable angina with hospitalization, target vessel revascularization and target lesion revascularization) during a minimal follow-up of one year. Results: Mean age was 61 ± 11 years (68.2% males). Clinical presentations included acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in 62.7% and proliferative ISR in 34.5%. CISR was treated with implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) in 36.4%, Bare Metal Stent (BMS) in 23.6%, myocardial revascularization surgery in 18.2%, balloon angioplasty in 15.5% and clinical treatment in 6.4%. During a median follow-up of 19.7 months, the primary outcome occurred in 18 patients, including 6 (5.5%) deaths and 13 (11.8%) AMI events. Twenty-four patients presented a secondary outcome. Predictors of the primary outcome were CISR with DES (HR = 4.36 [1.44–12.85]; p = 0.009) and clinical treatment for CISR (HR = 10.66 [2.53–44.87]; p = 0.001). Treatment of CISR with BMS (HR = 4.08 [1.75–9.48]; p = 0.001) and clinical therapy (HR = 6.29 [1.35–29.38]; p = 0.019) emerged as predictors of a secondary outcome. Conclusion: Patients with CISR present in most cases with ACS and with a high frequency of adverse events during a medium-term follow-up.

In-vitro-Analyse von In-Stent-Stenosen im MRT unter Verwendung von Gadofosveset Trisodium : Evaluation geeigneter Sequenzen zur Artefaktreduktion

Magdeburg, Univ., Med. Fak., Diss., 2012

Perioperative in-stent thrombosis after lung resection performed within 3 months of coronary stenting

BACKGROUND: Incidence of perioperative in-stent thrombosis associated with myocardial infarction in patients undergoing major lung resection within 3 months of coronary stenting. METHODS: Retrospective multi-institutional trial including all patients undergoing major lung resection (lobectomy or pneumonectomy) within 3 months of coronary stenting with non-drug-eluting stents between 1999 and 2004. RESULTS: There were 32 patients (29 men and 3 women), with age ranging from 46 to 82 years. One, two or four coronary stents were deployed in 72%, 22% and 6% of the patients, respectively. The time intervals between stenting and lung surgery were <30 days, 30-60 days and 61-90 days in 22%, 53% and 25% of the patients, respectively. All patients had dual antiplatelet therapy after stenting. Perioperative medication consisted of heparin alone or heparin plus aspirin in 34% and 66% of the patients, respectively. Perioperative in-stent thrombosis with myocardial infarction occurred in three patients (9%) with fatal outcome in one (3%). Twenty patients underwent lung resection after 4 weeks of dual antiplatelet therapy as recommended by the ACC/AHA Guideline Update; however, two out of three perioperative in-stent thrombosis occurred in this group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Major lung resection performed within 3 months of coronary stenting may be complicated by perioperative in-stent thrombosis despite 4 weeks of dual antiplatelet therapy after stenting as recommended by the ACC/AHA Guideline Update.

Clinical outcome following combination of cutting balloon angioplasty and coronary β-radiation for in-stent restenosis : a report from the RENO registry

RESUME : Actuellement la brachythérapie endovasculaire reste le seul traitement efficace pour la resténose intrastent. Malgré ceci, la limitation majeure de cette technique est la resténose aux extrémités du stent (effet de bord) due à une couverture incomplète par la source radioactive (geographical miss). Le ballon coupant et qui ne glisse pas pourrait limiter le barotraumatisme engendré par la dilatation et qui avec la diminution de la radiation aux extrémités de la source radioactive, est à la base du geographical miss. Cette étude prospective a pour but d'examiner l'efficacité du traitement de la resténose intrastent par la combinaison d'angioplastie avec cutting ballon et β - irradiation. Le registre « Radiation in Europe NOvoste » (RENO) inclut tous les patients traités par β - irradiation coronaire avec le système Beta-CathTM System (Novoste Corporation, Brussels, Belgium) n'ayant pas été inclus dans une autre étude randomisée. Un premier sous-groupe de ces patients (groupe 1, n=166), représente les patients traités par cutting ballon et β - irradiation intra coronaire. Ce groupe a été défini d'une manière prospective et les résultats cliniques à 6 mois ont été comparés par rapport aux autres patients qui ont reçu un traitement par dilatation coronaire conventionnelle et β - irradiation (groupe 2, n=712). A 6 mois de suivi, on a retrouvé une différence significative entre les 2 groupes par rapport à la nécessité d'une nouvelle revascularisation du vaisseau préalablement traité (10,2% de récidive dans le groupe 1 contre 16,6 % dans le groupe 2 , p=0,04). Le nombre d'événements cardiaques majeurs (mortalité, infarctus du myocarde et revascularisation) a également été diminué de manière significative (10,8% contre 19,2% ; />=0,01). Cette observation a été confirmée par une analyse multivariée qui indique un risque diminué pour les événements cardiaques majeurs à 6 mois, (rapport de côtes : 0,49 ; intervalle de confiance 0,27-0,88 ; p=0,02). Comparé à l'angioplastie coronarienne avec ballon conventionnel, l'utilisation de cutting ballon avant la β - irradiation dans le traitement de la resténose intrastent démontre une meilleure évolution clinique à 6 mois. ABSTRACT: At present, vascular brachytherapy is the only efficient therapy for in-stent restenosis. Nevertheless edge restenosis often relat¬ed to geographical miss has been identified as a major limitation of the technique. The non-slippery cutting balloon has the potential to limit vascular barotraumas which, together with low-dose irradiation at both ends of the radioactive source, are the prerequisite for geographical miss. This prospective study aimed to examine the efficacy of combining cut¬ting balloon angioplasty and brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis. The Radiation in Europe NOvoste (RENO) registry prospectively tracked all patients who had been treated by coronary β-radiation with the Beta-CathTM System (Novoste Corporation. Brussels, Belgium) but were not included in a randomized radiation trial, A subgroup of patients with in-stent restenosis treated by cutting balloon angioplasty and coronary β-radiation (group 1, n = 166) was prospectively defined, and clinical outcomes of patients at 6 months were compared with those of patients treated by conventional angioplasty and coronary β -radiation (group 2, n = 712). At 6-month follow-up, there was a significant difference between groups 1 and 2 in- target vessel revascularization (10.2% versus 16.6% respectively; p = 0.04) and in the incidence of major adverse clinical events (MACE) including, death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization (10.8% versus 19.2%; p= 0.01). This observation was confirmed by a multivariate analysis indicating a. lower risk for MACE at 6 months (odds ratio: 0.49; confidence intervals: 0.27-0.88; p = 0.02). Compared to conventional angioplasty, cutting balloon angio¬plasty prior to coronary beta-radiation with the Beta-CathTM System seems to improve the 6-month clinical outcome in patients with in-stent restenosis.

Endoleak and in-stent thrombus detection with CT angiography in a thoracic aortic aneurysm phantom at different tube energies using filtered back projection and iterative algorithms.

PURPOSE: To determine the lower limit of dose reduction with hybrid and fully iterative reconstruction algorithms in detection of endoleaks and in-stent thrombus of thoracic aorta with computed tomographic (CT) angiography by applying protocols with different tube energies and automated tube current modulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The calcification insert of an anthropomorphic cardiac phantom was replaced with an aortic aneurysm model containing a stent, simulated endoleaks, and an intraluminal thrombus. CT was performed at tube energies of 120, 100, and 80 kVp with incrementally increasing noise indexes (NIs) of 16, 25, 34, 43, 52, 61, and 70 and a 2.5-mm section thickness. NI directly controls radiation exposure; a higher NI allows for greater image noise and decreases radiation. Images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and hybrid and fully iterative algorithms. Five radiologists independently analyzed lesion conspicuity to assess sensitivity and specificity. Mean attenuation (in Hounsfield units) and standard deviation were measured in the aorta to calculate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Attenuation and SNR of different protocols and algorithms were analyzed with analysis of variance or Welch test depending on data distribution. RESULTS: Both sensitivity and specificity were 100% for simulated lesions on images with 2.5-mm section thickness and an NI of 25 (3.45 mGy), 34 (1.83 mGy), or 43 (1.16 mGy) at 120 kVp; an NI of 34 (1.98 mGy), 43 (1.23 mGy), or 61 (0.61 mGy) at 100 kVp; and an NI of 43 (1.46 mGy) or 70 (0.54 mGy) at 80 kVp. SNR values showed similar results. With the fully iterative algorithm, mean attenuation of the aorta decreased significantly in reduced-dose protocols in comparison with control protocols at 100 kVp (311 HU at 16 NI vs 290 HU at 70 NI, P ≤ .0011) and 80 kVp (400 HU at 16 NI vs 369 HU at 70 NI, P ≤ .0007). CONCLUSION: Endoleaks and in-stent thrombus of thoracic aorta were detectable to 1.46 mGy (80 kVp) with FBP, 1.23 mGy (100 kVp) with the hybrid algorithm, and 0.54 mGy (80 kVp) with the fully iterative algorithm.

Multislice CT for assessing in-stent dimensions after left main coronary artery stenting: a comparison with three dimensional intravascular ultrasound

Objective: To evaluate the agreement between multislice CT (MSCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to assess the in-stent lumen diameters and lumen areas of left main coronary artery (LMCA) stents. Design: Prospective, observational single centre study. Setting: A single tertiary referral centre. Patients: Consecutive patients with LMCA stenting excluding patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic renal failure. Interventions: MSCT and IVUS imaging at 912 months follow-up were performed for all patients. Main outcome measures: Agreement between MSCT and IVUS minimum luminal area (MLA) and minimum luminal diameter (MLD). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to find the MSCT cut-off point to diagnose binary restenosis equivalent to 6 mm2 by IVUS. Results: 52 patients were analysed. PassingBablok regression analysis obtained a β coefficient of 0.786 (0.586 to 1.071) for MLA and 1.250 (0.936 to 1.667) for MLD, ruling out proportional bias. The α coefficient was −3.588 (−8.686 to −0.178) for MLA and −1.713 (−3.583 to −0.257) for MLD, indicating an underestimation trend of MSCT. The ROC curve identified an MLA ≤4.7 mm2 as the best threshold to assess in-stent restenosis by MSCT. Conclusions: Agreement between MSCT and IVUS to assess in-stent MLA and MLD for LMCA stenting is good. An MLA of 4.7 mm2 by MSCT is the best threshold to assess binary restenosis. MSCT imaging can be considered in selected patients to assess LMCA in-stent restenosis

Multislice CT for assessing in-stent dimensions after left main coronary artery stenting: a comparison with three dimensional intravascular ultrasound

Objective: To evaluate the agreement between multislice CT (MSCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to assess the in-stent lumen diameters and lumen areas of left main coronary artery (LMCA) stents. Design: Prospective, observational single centre study. Setting: A single tertiary referral centre. Patients: Consecutive patients with LMCA stenting excluding patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic renal failure. Interventions: MSCT and IVUS imaging at 9-12 months follow-up were performed for all patients. Main outcome measures: Agreement between MSCT and IVUS minimum luminal area (MLA) and minimum luminal diameter (MLD). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to find the MSCT cut-off point to diagnose binary restenosis equivalent to 6 mm2 by IVUS. Results: 52 patients were analysed. Passing-Bablok regression analysis obtained a β coefficient of 0.786 (0.586 to 1.071) for MLA and 1.250 (0.936 to 1.667) for MLD, ruling out proportional bias. The α coefficient was −3.588 (−8.686 to −0.178) for MLA and −1.713 (−3.583 to −0.257) for MLD, indicating an underestimation trend of MSCT. The ROC curve identified an MLA ≤4.7 mm2 as the best threshold to assess in-stent restenosis by MSCT. Conclusions: Agreement between MSCT and IVUS to assess in-stent MLA and MLD for LMCA stenting is good. An MLA of 4.7 mm2 by MSCT is the best threshold to assess binary restenosis. MSCT imaging can be considered in selected patients to assess LMCA in-stent restenosis

What are the components that contribute to variability in echocardiographic measurements in aortic stenosis?

INTRODUCTION Echocardiography is the standard clinical approach for quantification of the severity of aortic stenosis (AS). A comprehensive examination of its overall reproducibility and the simultaneous estimation of its variance components by multiple operators, readers, probe applications, and beats have not been undertaken. METHOD AND RESULTS Twenty-seven subjects with AS were scanned over 7 months in the echo-department by a median of 3 different operators. From each patient and each operator multiple runs of beats from multiple probe positions were stored for later analysis by multiple readers. The coefficient of variation was 13.3%, 15.9%, 17.6%, and 20.2% for the aortic peak velocity (Vmax), and velocity time integral (VTI), and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) Vmax and VTI respectively. The largest individual contributors to the overall variability were the beat-to-beat variability (9.0%, 9.3%, 9.5%, 9.4% respectively) and that of inability of an individual operator to precisely apply the probe to the same position twice (8.3%, 9.4%, 12.9%, 10.7% respectively). The tracing (inter-reader) and reader (inter-reader), and operator (inter-operator) contribution were less important. CONCLUSIONS Reproducibility of measurements in AS is poorer than often reported in the literature. The source of this variability does not appear, as traditionally believed, to result from a lack of training or operator and reader specific factors. Rather the unavoidable beat-to-beat biological variability, and the inherent impossibility of applying the ultrasound probe in exactly the same position each time are the largest contributors. Consequently, guidelines suggesting greater standardisation of procedures and further training for sonographers are unlikely to result in an improvement in precision. Clinicians themselves should be wary of relying on even three-beat averages as their expected coefficient of variance is 10.3% for the peak velocity at the aortic valve.