Percutaneous treatment of focal vs. diffuse in-stent restenosis: a prospective randomized comparison of conventional therapies.
Few randomized studies compare outcomes for focal vs. diffuse in-stent restenosis (ISR) using conventional treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) for focal vs. diffuse ISR using conventional techniques. One hundred thirteen patients with ISR were prospectively classified as focal (< 10 mm) or diffuse (> 10 mm). Focal ISR was randomized to balloon angioplasty (n = 29) or restenting (n = 29) and diffuse ISR randomized to rotational atherectomy (n = 30) or restenting (n = 25). At 9 months, patients with focal ISR had higher survival free of MACEs than patients with diffuse ISR (86% vs. 63%; P < 0.005), with no difference between techniques. Only the presence of diffuse ISR was an independent predictor of MACE at 9 months. Thus, focal ISR has a low rate of MACE compared to diffuse ISR, which carries a high event rate regardless of treatment employed.
Ragosta
Michael
M
Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908, USA. mragosta@virginia.edu
Samady
Habib
H
Gimple
Lawrence W
LW
Sarembock
Ian J
IJ
Fenster
Michael
M
Powers
Eric R
ER
D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary; D017225:Atherectomy, Coronary; D017023:Coronary Angiography; D023903:Coronary Restenosis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000628:therapy*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011446:Prospective Studies; D019233:Retreatment; D015607:Stents; D016019:Survival Analysis; D016896:Treatment Outcome