(Circulation. 2001;103:188.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.
Brief Rapid Communication |
-Irradiation for Preventing Recurrent In-Stent Restenosis
From the Cardiovascular Research Institute, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC.
Correspondence to Neil J. Weissman, MD, 110 Irving St NW, Suite 4B1, Washington, DC 20010. E-mail njw1{at}mhg.edu
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Methods and ResultsWe compared serial (postintervention and follow-up) intravascular ultrasound findings in 66 patients with native coronary artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) who were treated with 192Ir (15 Gy delivered 2 mm away from the radiation source). Patients were enrolled in the Washington Radiation for In-Stent Restenosis Trial (WRIST; ISR length, 10 to 47 mm; n=36) or Long WRIST (ISR length, 36 to 80 mm; n=30). External elastic membrane, stent, lumen, and intimal hyperplasia (IH; stent minus lumen) areas and source-to-target (intravascular ultrasound catheter to external elastic membrane) distances were measured. Postintervention stent areas were larger in WRIST and smaller in Long WRIST patients (P<0.0001). At follow-up, maximum IH area significantly increased in both WRIST and Long WRIST patients (P<0.0001 for both), but this increase was greater in Long WRIST patients (P=0.0006). Similarly, minimum lumen cross-sectional area significantly decreased in both WRIST and Long WRIST patients (P<0.05 and P<0.0001, respectively), but this decrease was more pronounced in Long WRIST patients (P=0.0567). The maximum source-to-target distance was longer in Long WRIST than in WRIST, and it correlated directly with ISR length (r=0.547, P<0.0001). Overall, the change in minimum lumen area and the change in maximum IH area correlated with the maximum source-to-target distance (r=0.352, P=0.0038 and r=0.523, P<0.0001 for WRIST and Long WRIST, respectively). The variability (maximum/minimum) in IH area at follow-up also correlated with the maximum source-to-target distance (r=0.378, P<0.0001).
ConclusionsBrachytherapy may be less effective in longer ISR lesions because of the greater variability and longer source-to-target distances in diffuse ISR.
Key Words: stents restenosis imaging
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The present study used serial (postirradiation and
follow-up) intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging to analyze the
impact of lesion length on recurrent neointimal hyperplasia after
-radiation treatment of native artery ISR. In particular, the
current analysis compares the 192Ir-treated
patients from 2 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials that
used identical dose prescriptions: the Washington Radiation In-Stent
Restenosis Trial (WRIST) included ISR lesions 10 to 47 mm long, and
Long WRIST included lesions 36 to 80 mm
long.
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
-irradiation. The same
radiation dose prescription and delivery system was used in both
studies. A 5-F, closed-end, noncentering catheter was used to deliver
the 192Ir (15 Gy delivered 2 mm radially
distant from the radiation source). There was no difference in
dwell time between the 2 groups (20.4±3.1 minutes for Long WRIST
versus 21.5±3.2 minutes for WRIST,
P=0.14). These patients
represent the entire cohort of native artery lesions in WRIST and Long
WRIST for which postirradiation and follow-up IVUS imaging is
available.
IVUS Imaging and Analysis
IVUS imaging was performed after the administration
of 200 µg of intracoronary nitroglycerine using SCIMED/BSC equipment
and automated transducer pullback (0.5 mm/s) through a stationary
imaging sheath. IVUS imaging was performed immediately after and 6
months after
irradiation.13 14
External elastic membrane (EEM), stent, and lumen boundaries were
identified. Stent, lumen, and intimal hyperplasia (IH; stent minus
lumen) cross-sectional areas (CSAs) were measured every 1 mm for WRIST
lesions and every 2 mm for Long WRIST lesions (Tape Measure, Indec
Systems) according to standard
protocols.13 14
Stent length was measured using motorized transducer pullback
[length=(number of seconds)x(0.5 mm/second)]. In addition,
the maximum and minimum distances from the center of the IVUS catheter
to the EEM were measured
(Figure 1
); this reflected source-to-target distances. Source
eccentricity was determined by dividing the maximum IVUS
catheter-to-EEM distance by the minimum distance. The axial variability
in IH reaccumulation was calculated as the maximum follow-up IH CSA
divided by the minimum CSA.
|
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using Statview 4.5
(SAS Institute). Continuous variables are presented as mean±1SD and
compared using paired or unpaired Students
t tests or regression analysis.
Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and compared using
2
statistics.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Postintervention IVUS Results
IVUS results are shown in
Table 2
. ISR lesion length was 26.0±12.2 mm in WRIST and
55.1±13.4 mm in Long WRIST.
|
Postintervention stent areas were larger in WRIST and smaller in Long WRIST. This is consistent with the trend for EEM CSA to be larger in WRIST lesions (15.0±3.7 mm2 versus 13.6±2.7 mm2 for WRIST versus Long WRIST, P=0.078). In particular, minimum stent CSA in Long WRIST measured only 5.2±1.0 mm2.
Postintervention lumen CSAs were similar in both groups. There was less residual neointimal tissue in Long WRIST lesions; this may be related to the smaller stent areas and the greater use of additional stents in this group.
Serial IVUS Results
At follow-up, mean lumen areas significantly decreased
in Long WRIST but not WRIST patients. Mean IH CSA significantly
increased in Long WRIST patients but not in WRIST patients. This
resulted in a smaller follow-up mean lumen area in Long WRIST patients
(Table 2
).
There was a significant decrease in minimum lumen CSA and a
significant increase in maximum IH CSA in both WRIST and Long WRIST
patients at follow-up, but these changes were more pronounced in Long
WRIST patients
(Table 2
). Minimum lumen area was smaller in Long WRIST
patients.
The ratio of maximum to minimum follow-up IH CSA was 7.7±13.6 in Long WRIST lesions and 2.9±1.3 in WRIST lesions. This indicated a greater heterogeneity in neointimal recurrence over the length of the ISR lesion in Long WRIST.
Impact of Lesion Geometry
To analyze the impact of lesion geometry on the
response to radiation, the maximum and minimum distances from the IVUS
catheter to the EEM were measured as an index of the source-to-target
distance. The maximum source-to-target distance was greater in Long
WRIST than in WRIST
(Table 2
), and the maximum source-to-target distance
correlated directly with ISR length
(r=0.547,
P<0.0001;
Figure 2
). No patient in WRIST had an IVUS source-to-target
distance >4.0 mm, but 43% of the patients in Long WRIST did
(P<0.0001).
|
When IVUS results were compared with the source-to-target
distances, the change in minimum lumen area and the change in maximum
IH area correlated with the maximum source-to-target distance
(r=0.352,
P=0.0038 and
r=0.523,
P<0.0001, respectively;
Figure 2
). The variability in neointimal reaccumulation
(maximum/minimum follow-up IH CSA) also correlated with the maximum
source-to-target distance
(r=0.378,
P<0.0001). This suggested that
the greater heterogeneity in the neointimal response present in Long
WRIST lesions was related to lesion
geometry.
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The influence of lesion length on recurrence after brachytherapy is not well understood. The findings in the current study indicate that longer ISR lesions are associated with (1) smaller stent sizes, (2) greater source eccentricity within the artery, and (3) longer source-to-target distances (measured by the distance from the IVUS catheter to the EEM). Because source-to-target distances determine the dose delivered to the adventitia, focal areas within longer ISR lesions would have received a lower dose, resulting in a greater heterogeneity of the neointimal response. The increase in maximum IH and decrease in minimum lumen CSA both correlated with the maximum source-to-target distance; the maximum source-to-target distance, in turn, correlated with ISR length. Previous IVUS brachytherapy studies indicated that to be effective, a minimum dose must be delivered to the adventitia.15
Source eccentricity and source-to-target distances have the following 2 anatomic components: (1) plaque mass and plaque eccentricity and (2) the location of the source within the lumen. Previous studies have shown a relationship between plaque eccentricity and lesion length.16 The current study indicates that a similar relationship exists between the location of the IVUS catheter within the lumen and lesion length. The longer the lesion, the greater the variability in cross-sectional geometry. Higher radiation doses or centering may improve the homogeneity of the actual dosing of the adventitia.
Finally, longer lesions had smaller stents. Smaller stent areas might magnify the increased amount and greater variability of recurrent neointimal hyperplasia.13
Limitations
Follow-up was limited to 6 months. The analysis assumes
that the source was located at the same position as the IVUS catheter.
Analysis was limited to the stent length and did not include the stent
margins. More patients in the Long WRIST group received new stents,
which might have stimulated additional intimal hyperplasia. The current
analysis includes only patients who had IVUS imaging both immediately
after irradiation and at follow-up.
| Conclusions |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Received September 13, 2000; revision received November 14, 2000; accepted November 16, 2000.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Remiers B, Moussa I, Akiyama T, et al. Long-term clinical follow-up after successful repeat percutaneous intervention for stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:186192.[Abstract]
3.
Mehran R, Mintz GS,
Satler LF, et al. Treatment of in-stent restenosis with excimer laser
coronary angioplasty. Mechanisms and results compared to PTCA alone.
Circulation. 1997;96:21832189.
4.
Mehran R, Dangas G,
Abizaid AS, et al. Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis:
classification and implication for long-term outcome.
Circulation. 1999;100:18721878.
5. Duerman HL, Baim DS, Cutlip DE, et al. Mechanical debulking versus balloon angioplasty for the treatment of diffuse in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82:227284.
6.
Beauters C, Banos
J-L, Belle V, et al. Six month angiographic outcomes after successful
repeat percutaneous intervention for in-stent restenosis.
Circulation. 1998;97:318322.
7. Vom Dahl J, Radke PW, Hagger PK, et al. Clinical and angiographic predictors of recurrent restenosis after percutaneous transluminal rotational atherectomy for treatment of diffuse in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83:862867.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Lee SG, Lee CW, Cheong SS, et al. Immediate and long-term outcomes of rotational atherectomy versus balloon angioplasty alone for treatment of diffuse in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82:140143.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9.
Sharma SK, Duvvuri
S, Dangas G, et al. Rotational atherectomy for in-stent restenosis:
acute and long-term results of the first 100 cases.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:13581365.
10.
Bossi I, Klersy
C, Black AJ, et al. In-stent restenosis: long-term outcome and
predictors of subsequent target lesion revascularization after repeat
balloon angioplasty. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2000;35:15691576.
11.
Teirstein PS,
Massullo V, Jani S, et al. Catheter-based radiotherapy to inhibit
restenosis after coronary stenting. N
Engl J Med. 1997;336:16971703.
12.
Waksman R, White
L, Chan R, et al. Intracoronary
-radiation therapy after angioplasty
inhibits recurrence in patients with in-stent restenosis.
Circulation. 2000;101:21652170.
13. Dussaillant GR, Mintz GS, Pichard AD, et al. Small stent size and intimal hyperplasia contribute to restenosis: a volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:720724.[Abstract]
14.
Hoffmann R, Mintz
GS, Dussaillant GR, et al. Patterns and mechanisms of in-stent
restenosis: a serial intravascular ultrasound study.
Circulation. 1996;94:12471254.
15.
Sabate M,
Marijnissen JP, Carlier SG, et al. Residual plaque burden, delivered
dose, and tissue composition predict 6-month outcome after balloon
angioplasty and ß-radiation therapy.
Circulation. 2000;101:24722477.
16.
Mintz GS, Popma
JJ, Pichard AD, et al. Limitations of angiography in the assessment of
plaque distribution in coronary artery disease: a systematic study of
target lesion eccentricity in 1446 lesions.
Circulation. 1996;93:924931.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. Waksman, E. Cheneau, A. E. Ajani, R. L. White, E. Pinnow, R. Torguson, R. Deible, L. F. Satler, A. D. Pichard, K. M. Kent, et al. Intracoronary Radiation Therapy Improves the Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes of Diffuse In-Stent Restenotic Lesions: Results of the Washington Radiation for In-Stent Restenosis Trial for Long Lesions (Long WRIST) Studies Circulation, April 8, 2003; 107(13): 1744 - 1749. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Spanos, G. Stankovic, J. Tobis, and A. Colombo The challenge of in-stent restenosis: insights from intravascular ultrasound Eur. Heart J., January 2, 2003; 24(2): 138 - 150. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. C. Lowe, S. N. Oesterle, and L. M. Khachigian Coronary in-stent restenosis: Current status and future strategies J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 16, 2002; 39(2): 183 - 193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. S. Mintz, N. J. Weissman, and P. J. Fitzgerald Intravascular Ultrasound Assessment of the Mechanisms and Results of Brachytherapy Circulation, September 11, 2001; 104(11): 1320 - 1325. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. M. Ahmed, G. S. Mintz, R. Waksman, R. Mehran, B. Leiboff, A. D. Pichard, L. F. Satler, K. M. Kent, and N. J. Weissman Serial Intravascular Ultrasound Assessment of the Efficacy of Intracoronary {gamma}-Radiation Therapy for Preventing Recurrence in Very Long, Diffuse, In-Stent Restenosis Lesions Circulation, August 21, 2001; 104(8): 856 - 859. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2001 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |