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
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Jul 4;12(13):e029300.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.029300. Epub 2023 Jun 29.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for In-Stent Restenosis Versus De Novo Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Ayman Elbadawi  1 , Alexander T Dang  2 , Ingy Mahana  3 , Mohammed Elzeneini  4 , Fernando Alonso  5 , Subhash Banerjee  1 , Dharam J Kumbhani  1 , Islam Y Elgendy  6 , Gary S Mintz  7
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for In-Stent Restenosis Versus De Novo Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Ayman Elbadawi et al. J Am Heart Assoc. .

Abstract

Background In-stent restenosis (ISR) is commonly encountered even in the era of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is a paucity of data on the comparative outcomes of PCI for ISR lesions versus de novo lesions. Methods and Results An electronic search was conducted for MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase through August 2022 for studies comparing the clinical outcomes after PCI for ISR versus de novo lesions. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The final analysis included 12 studies, with a total of 708 391 patients, of whom 71 353 (10.3%) underwent PCI for ISR. The weighted follow-up duration was 29.1 months. Compared with de novo lesions, PCI for ISR was associated with a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events (odds ratio [OR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.18-1.46]). There was no difference on a subgroup analysis of chronic total occlusion lesions versus none (Pinteraction=0.69). PCI for ISR was associated with a higher incidence of all-cause mortality (OR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.02-1.04]), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.11-1.29]), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.29-1.55]), and stent thrombosis (OR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.11-1.87]), but no difference in cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]). Conclusions PCI for ISR is associated with higher incidence of adverse cardiac events compared with PCI for de novo lesions. Future efforts should be directed toward prevention of ISR and exploring novel treatment strategies for ISR lesions.

Keywords: de novo lesions; in‐stent restenosis; percutaneous coronary intervention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Forrest plot for long‐term major adverse cardiovascular events after PCI of ISR vs de novo lesions.
CTO indicates chronic total occlusion; exp(ES), Exponentiated log effect‐size; ISR, in‐stent restenosis; and PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forrest plot for secondary outcomes after PCI of ISR vs de novo lesions.
CTO indicates chronic total occlusion; exp(ES), Exponentiated log effect‐size; ISR, in‐stent restenosis; and PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Summary of the outcomes with PCI for ISR vs de novo lesions.
ISR indicates in‐stent restenosis; OR, odds ratio; and PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lawton JS, Tamis‐Holland JE, Bangalore S, Bates ER, Beckie TM, Bischoff JM, Bittl JA, Cohen MG, DiMaio JM, Don CW, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145:e4–e17. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001060 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen MS, John JM, Chew DP, Lee DS, Ellis SG, Bhatt DL. Bare metal stent restenosis is not a benign clinical entity. Am Heart J. 2006;151:1260–1264. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.08.011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Virmani R, Farb A. Pathology of in‐stent restenosis. Curr Opin Lipidol. 1999;10:499–506. doi: 10.1097/00041433-199912000-00004 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lowe HC, Oesterle SN, Khachigian LM. Coronary in‐stent restenosis: current status and future strategies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:183–193. doi: 10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01742-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alfonso F, Byrne RA, Rivero F, Kastrati A. Current treatment of in‐stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2659–2673. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.545 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms