| Summary: | Restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) remains a clinical problem. We report our experience with the use a second SES in the first SES to treat in-SES restenosis. Twenty-seven patients with in-SES restenosis were included in the registry. In-SES restenosis was focal in 34%, diffuse in 59% and proliferative in 7%. The procedure was successful in all patients without any acute in-hospital complications. During a mean follow-up of 14 ± 7 months MACE occurred in 8 patients (30%), (1 death, 1 myocardial infarction, 4 target lesion revascularisation, 1 target vessel revascularisation and 1 patient underwent CABG). Nineteen patients (70%) had an event-free outcome. In conclusion SES placement to treat in-SES is safe and feasible and could be considered as a therapeutic option. However the incidence of MACE remains high on a long-term period. The use of stents has significantly improved the outcome of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) (1,2). However, despite major advances in angioplasty and stenting, in-stent restenosis remains a major limitation. Recently, drug-eluting stents and especially sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have emerged as a very promising approach in preventing restenosis, and several different compounds have been shown to have a major impact on both the angiographic and the clinical outcome (6-9). However, even after drug eluting stents implantation in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains and represents a clinical challenge. Several approaches have been proposed to deal with ISR like plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), rotational atherectomy, brachytherapy (1-3). Few reports are actually available about the use of SES in SES for ISR treatment. We report our experience about the use SES for treating an ISR after SES implantation.
|
|---|
