4.4 Review

Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: Predictors and Treatment

Journal

DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL
Volume 118, Issue 38, Pages 637-+

Publisher

DEUTSCHER AERZTE-VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0254

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses the risk factors, diagnostic measures, and effective treatment strategies for in-stent restenosis (ISR). The type of implanted stent, presence of diabetes mellitus, previous bypass surgery, and small vessel caliber are predictors for ISR. European specialist societies recommend repeated PCI with DES implantation or DCB angioplasty as the methods of choice for ISR treatment.
Background: Despite the use of modern drug-eluting stents (DES), in-stent restenosis (ISR) may still occur in as many as 2-10% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in certain lesion/patient subsets. ISR causes increased morbidity after stent implantation; acute myocardial infarction is a frequent correlate to a clinical ISR, arising in 5-10% of cases. Compared to de novo stenosis, patients with ISR also present more frequently with symptoms of unstable angina pectoris (45% versus 61%). In this article, we discuss the risk factors for ISR and the corresponding diagnostic measures and effective treatment strategies. Methods: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, with special attention to current international guidelines and specialist society recommendations. Results: The type of implanted stent, the presence of diabetes mellitus, previous bypass surgery, and small vessel caliber are predictors for ISR. In their guidelines, the European specialist societies (ESC/EACTS) recommend repeated PCI with DES implantation or drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty as the methods of choice for the treatment of ISR. This approach is supported by evidence from meta-analyses. The RIBS-IV trial showed that revascularization treatment of the target lesion is needed less often after everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation than after DCB dilatation (11 [7.1%] versus 24 [15.6%]; p = 0.015; hazard ratio: 0.43; 95% confidence interval: [0.21; 0.87]). Conclusion: Because the pathogenesis of ISR is multifactorial, differentiated risk stratification is necessary. The identification of patient-, stent-, and lesion-related predictors is particularly important, as the most effective way to combat ISR is to prevent it.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available