Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2001 Sep;38(3):672-9.
doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01458-9.

Cutting balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: a matched comparison with rotational atherectomy, additional stent implantation and balloon angioplasty

Affiliations
Free article
Comparative Study

Cutting balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: a matched comparison with rotational atherectomy, additional stent implantation and balloon angioplasty

M Adamian et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 Sep.
Free article

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of the study was to determine whether cutting balloon angioplasty (CBA) has advantages over other modalities in treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR).

Background: Controversies exist regarding optimal treatment for ISR. Recently, CBA emerged as a tool in management of ISR.

Methods: A total of 648 lesions treated for ISR were divided into four groups according to the treatment strategy: CBA, rotational atherectomy (ROTA), additional stenting (STENT), and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Following the matching process, 258 lesions were entered into the analysis.

Results: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar among the groups (p = NS). Acute lumen gain was significantly higher in the STENT group (2.12 +/- 0.7 mm), whereas in the CBA group the gain was similar to one achieved following ROTA and following PTCA (1.70 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.79 +/- 0.5 mm and 1.56 +/- 0.7 mm, respectively; p = NS). The lumen loss at follow-up was lower for the CBA versus ROTA and versus STENT (0.63 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.30 +/- 0.8 mm and 1.36 +/- 0.8 mm, respectively; p < 0.0001), yielding a lower recurrent restenosis rate (20% vs. 35.9% and 41.4%, respectively; p < 0.05). By multivariate analysis, CBA (odds ratio [OR] = 0.17; confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.51; p = 0.001) and diffuse restenosis type at baseline (OR = 2.07; CI, 1.15 to 3.71; p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of target lesion revascularization.

Conclusions: We conclude that CBA is a safe and efficient technique for treatment of ISR, with immediate results similar to atheroablation and better clinical and angiographic outcomes at follow-up. This approach might be implemented as a viable option in management of focal ISR and to prepare diffuse ISR for brachytherapy treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • A cutting edge technology, or is it?
    King SB 3rd. King SB 3rd. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 Sep;38(3):680-1. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01457-7. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001. PMID: 11527616 No abstract available.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources