Percutaneous treatment of focal vs. diffuse in-stent restenosis: A prospective randomized comparison of conventional therapies

✍ Scribed by Michael Ragosta; Habib Samady; Lawrence W. Gimple; Ian J. Sarembock; Michael Fenster; Eric R. Powers

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2004
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 71 KB
• Volume: 61
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 1522-1946
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.10779

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

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. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004;61:344–349. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.