4.6 Article

Intracoronary Brachytherapy for Recurrent Drug-Eluting Stent Failure

期刊

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 1259-1265

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.03.018

关键词

brachytherapy; drug-eluting stent(s); in-stent restenosis

资金

  1. AstraZeneca
  2. Biotronik
  3. Boston Scientific

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The study sought to report safety and long-term clinical efficacy of intravascular brachytherapy (VBT) for recurrent drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (DES-ISR). BACKGROUND Recurrent DES-ISR remains a therapeutic challenge, and VBT has been used selectively in recurrent DES failure. METHODS Patients undergoing VBT for recurrent DES-ISR were enrolled from a percutaneous coronary intervention registry. Clinical, procedural, VBT, and outcome data were collected for DES-ISR treated with radiation. Follow-up was obtained by phone call and clinic visits. RESULTS A total of 186 patients (283 lesions) were included. Mean age was 65 +/- 11 years, and 115 (61.8%) were men. Mean time to failure from last failed DES implantation was 450.65 +/- 50 days. Majority (95%) had > 2 episodes of target lesion revascularization (TLR). Commonest presentation of DES-ISR was unstable angina (68, 30%). All lesions were treated with balloon angioplasty followed by VBT using Beta-Cath system (Best Vascular Inc., Springfield, Virginia) with a dose of 23 to 25 Gy at 2 mm from source center. Radiation was delivered to site of ISR, without procedural adverse events, in 99% cases. Incidence of TLR was 3.3% at 6 months, 12.1% at 1 year, 19.1% at 2 years, and 20.7% at 3 years. No subacute thrombosis event was noted. One patient had late thrombosis during a 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS VBTfor recurrent DES-ISR is safe, with low recurrence rates at 12 months post-procedure, and can be safely used as an effective short-term strategy. Overtime, there is a gradual attrition in patency requiring repeat intervention. (C) 2016 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据