Long-Term Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Following Failed Beta-Brachytherapy
ORIGINAL ARTICLES:
Long-Term Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Following Failed Beta-Brachytherapy
- Francesco Saia, MD, Georgios Sianos, MD, Angela Hoye, MB, ChB, Pedro A. Lemos, MD, Willem J. van der Giessen, MD, PhD, Pim de Feyter, MD, PhD, Ron T. van Domburg, PhD, Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD
|
|
ABSTRACT: Background. Recurrent restenosis following vascular brachytherapy (VBT) has been reported in up to one-third of the patients enrolled in clinical trials. The long-term outcome of repeat percutaneous intervention (PCI) after failed beta-brachytherapy is currently unknown. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed 97 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary reintervention after failed beta-brachytherapy at our institution (80.8% of all brachytherapy failures). Long-term incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) was assessed. Results. The procedure was successful in 90 patients (92.8%). A new stent was implanted in 72% of the procedures (sirolimus-eluting stent in 16.5%). After 3 years, survival was 94.3%, survival-free from myocardial infarction was 86.7% and MACE-free survival was 66.1%. No difference was observed in MACE-free survival between patients originally treated with brachytherapy for recurrent in-stent restenosis and patients receiving irradiation for de novo lesions (68.2% de novo group versus 61.2% ISR group; p = 0.6 by log rank test). Overall, a second target lesion revascularization was performed in 27 patients (27.8%) after an average of 11.2 ± 11.2 months; 21 patients (21.6%) had restenosis, and 6 (6.2%) developed late total vessel occlusion (related to acute myocardial infarction in 2 cases). Conclusion. Repeat PCI is the most common choice after failed brachytherapy. This strategy appears to be a reasonable therapeutic option for this complex iterative pathology.
Key words: brachytherapy, coronary angioplasty, restenosis
Ionizing radiation has been shown to reduce neointimal formation after balloon angioplasty through the reduction of vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and positive vessel remodeling.1 Although coronary vascular brachytherapy (VBT) for prevention of restenosis in de novo lesions is controversial,2–4 it represents the gold standard treatment for diffuse in-stent restenosis (ISR).5–9 However, in clinical trials, brachytherapy failure (angiographic restenosis and target lesion revascularization) has been reported in a consistent number of patients, with a slow but progressive increase over long-term follow-up.10 Although in this clinical setting bypass surgery may represent a more definitive choice of treatment, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains an appealing strategy.
Recently, two studies reported the outcome of repeat PCI in patients after failure of gamma-brachytherapy in the GAMMA11 and the WRIST trials.12 They showed that the pattern of recurrent restenosis was predominantly focal. In these studies, percutaneous reintervention was accomplished safely, but in up to one-third of the patients a repeat reintervention was necessary during follow-up.
Beta-radiation, in contrast with gamma, has limited penetration and does not require modifications to the standard shielding used in the catheterization laboratory. As a result, beta-sources became the most widely used type of vascular brachytherapy. Nevertheless, there is no specific information in the literature regarding the outcome of patients who failed beta-brachytherapy. The process of restenosis after coronary irradiation is still not entirely understood, and a possible different vascular response to percutaneous treatment following beta- and gamma-radiation cannot be ruled out a priori.
The aim of this study was therefore to assess the long-term clinical outcome of patients who underwent percutaneous revascularization for restenosis following intracoronary beta-brachytherapy with catheter-based techniques.
Methods
Patient population. We retrospectively analyzed the data from all patients treated with catheter-based beta-brachytherapy at our institution between April 29, 1997 and December 31, 2001 (n = 301). The majority of patients were enrolled in clinical studies, with designs and principal results published elsewhere (Table 1).4,6,13–17 A total of 120 patients with the diagnosis of brachytherapy failure were identified (39.9% of the entire brachytherapy-treated population in the pre-defined period). Brachytherapy was originally administered for in-stent restenosis in 43 patients, and for de novo lesions in 77 patients. The subsequent management of these patients, including revascularization strategy (surgical or percutaneous), was decided conjointly by a team of interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons. Overall, eight asymptomatic patients (5.8%) with angiographic restenosis were treated conservatively, fifteen patients (12.5%) underwent bypass surgery, and the remaining 97 patients (80.8%) were treated with repeat percutaneous intervention and comprise the present analysis.
Table 1
|  | |
|
Percutaneous reintervention procedure. All patients were pre-treated with aspirin (> 75 mg/day). Clopidogrel (75 mg/day or 300 mg as a loading bolus dose) was given to those in whom stent implantation was planned in advance. During the procedure, weight-adjusted heparin was administrated to achieve an activated clotting time of > 300 seconds. Final treatment strategy and medications were left to operator discretion.
Table 2
|  | |
|
Definitions. Restenosis was defined as > 50% diameter stenosis by quantitative coronary analysis. At baseline, lesions were classified as: 1) restenosis in the irradiated segment; 2) edge-restenosis, defined as restenosis occurring in the 5 millimeters proximal or distal to the irradiated segment; or 3) late total occlusion, defined as total vessel occlusion angiographically documented at the irradiated site more than 30 days after the brachytherapy procedure. The percutaneous reintervention was considered successful when a good angiographic result was obtained in combination with TIMI flow 3. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (either percutaneous or surgical). The diagnosis of myocardial infarction was based on an increased level of creatine kinase to greater than twice the upper limit of normal with an increased level of creatine kinase-MB isoform. For patients admitted to peripheral hospitals in the acute phase, the diagnosis of myocardial infarction was confirmed by the referring physician based on the same criteria. Target lesion revascularization was defined as any surgical or percutaneous reintervention due to restenosis within the irradiated segment or the 5 mm proximal or distal segments (edge restenosis). Target vessel revascularization was defined as any reintervention driven by lesions located in the treated vessel beyond the target lesion limits. Non-target vessel revascularization was defined as any reintervention in vessels other than the target vessel. Subacute thrombosis was defined as angiographically documented total occlusion <= 30 days after the percutaneous reintervention. Late total occlusion was defined as an angiographically documented total occlusion at the treated site > 30 days after the percutaneous reintervention.
Figure 1
|  | | Flow chart illustrating the design and principal results of the study. Asterisk denotes that all the percentages given between brackets refer to that number (97 patients). CABG = coronary artery bypass graft; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; non-TVR = other vessel revascularization; TLR = target lesion revascularization; TVR = target vessel revascularization; VBT = vascular brachytherapy.
|
Follow-up. Baseline clinical and procedural data were prospectively entered into a dedicated database. Information about reinterventions was obtained from an electronic database of hospital records. The Thoraxcentre is a tertiary cardiology center serving a group of 14 local hospitals, and is the only one with facilities for percutaneous interventions in the region of Rotterdam. As required by the local medical system organization, all baseline procedures were performed in this tertiary facility, as were the vast majority of reinterventions. Long-term survival status was assessed by written inquiries to the Municipal Civil Registries. Questionnaires were sent to all living patients focusing on the occurrence of adverse cardiac events such as myocardial infarction and repeat intervention (surgical and percutaneous). The referring physicians and institutions as well as the general practitioners were directly approached whenever necessary. The follow-up period was defined as the time between the first reintervention following failed brachytherapy and March 31, 2003. Complete follow-up was obtained for all patients.
Statistical methods. Continuous variables are expressed as means ± standard deviations, and categorical variables are reported as numbers and relative percentages. Event-free survival rates were estimated according to the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared by the log-rank test.
Results
Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. Baseline characteristics of the 97 patients who failed brachytherapy and underwent a new PCI are described in Table 2. The average time from the brachytherapy procedure to this first TLR was 13.4 ± 13.4 months. In 11 patients (11.3%), irradiation was performed with a 32Phosphorus (32P) source, and in 86 (88.7%) with a 90Strontium/90Yttrium (90Sr/90Y) source. The average dose administered was 18.7 ± 5.5 Gy, and average source length was 35 ± 8 mm. Acute coronary syndrome was the presenting diagnosis in 36 patients (37.1%); of these, five (4.2%) had acute myocardial infarction due to late thrombosis (all had been treated and had received brachytherapy for de novo lesions, and 4 of them had received a new stent). Restenotic post-brachytherapy lesions were classified as restenosis within the irradiated segment in 55 patients (56.7%), edge-restenosis in 21 patients (21.6%) and late total occlusion in 21 patients (21.6%).
Figure 2
|  | | Kaplan-Meier curves showing survival, survival free of myocardial infarction (MI), and survival free of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients treated with repeat percutaneous coronary interventions following failed beta-brachytherapy. Time “0” represents the first repeat target lesion revascularization after failed vascular brachytherapy.
|
During repeat PCI, procedural success was achieved in 90 patients (92.8%). There were seven procedural failures, all in patients with totally occluded vessels. A new stent was implanted in 65 cases (72.2%). Sixteen patients (16.5%) received a sirolimus-eluting stent during the reintervention.
Follow-up. Figure 1 shows a flow chart with the design and principal results of the study. Total revascularization rate was 30.9% (30 patients). Repeat TLR was performed in 27 patients (27.8%); ten of these (10.3%) were treated with bypass surgery and a second percutaneous TLR was performed in the remaining 17 (17.7%). The average time from the first to the second TLR procedure was 11.2 ± 11.2 months. The clinical presentation at the time of the second TLR was stable angina in 17 patients (63.0%), unstable angina in seven (25.9%) and acute myocardial infarction in three (11.1%). All patients with acute myocardial infarction received a new stent during the first reintervention following brachytherapy (on an individual basis, the time elapsed from the brachytherapy procedure was 8.4, 11.5 and 28.1 months, whereas the time elapsed from the first reintervention post-brachytherapy was 4.4, 5.9 and 12.0 months). Angiographically, late total occlusion was documented in six patients. In two of these, the late total occlusion was associated with an acute myocardial infarction (one of them was still on combined antiplatelet regimen). At three years, the cumulative survival rate was 94.3%, survival free of myocardial infarction was 86.7% and survival free of MACE was 66.1% (Figure 2). When the patients originally treated with brachytherapy for recurrent ISR were compared to patients receiving irradiation for de novo lesions, the MACE-free survival rate was similar (68.2% de novo group versus 61.2% ISR group; p = 0.6 by log rank test) (Figure 3).
Figure 3
|  | | Major adverse cardiac event-free survival after percutaneous reintervention in patients originally treated with brachytherapy for recurrent in-stent restenosis (ISR) and for prevention of restenosis in de novo lesions (de novo).
|
Sirolimus-eluting stent subgroup. Among the sixteen patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents, three (18.7%) underwent a second clinically-driven TLR, one patient (6.2%) died of progressive congestive heart failure (pre-existing) and two more patients (12.5%) had angiographic restenosis found at elective angiographic control. No further reinterventions were done because they were asymptomatic. Overall, a failure of sirolimus-eluting stents was clearly documented in five patients (31.2%).
Discussion
In this study, we report the outcome of a consecutive series of patients treated with PCI after recurrent restenosis following catheter-delivered coronary beta-irradiation. In this setting, a percutaneous strategy appeared feasible, with a high rate of procedural success and low peri-procedural risk. Moreover, considering the complexity of these patients, the long-term outcome could be considered acceptable. Indeed, our results are similar to those previously described for reinterventions after failed gamma-brachytherapy for ISR, where a long-term incidence of MACE of 42.2% and a revascularization rate of 33.3% were reported.11
Defining the outcome after reinterventions following vascular brachytherapy failure is of great importance. In fact, although brachytherapy is considered the best therapeutic option for patients with complex in-stent restenosis,5–9 up to one-third of these patients will subsequently develop recurrent restenosis and need reintervention.11,12 Geographical miss,18 late stent thrombosis,19 late total occlusion,20 delayed restenosis21 and persistent dissections22 are well documented phenomena. Most are intrinsically related to the radiation’s effects and cannot be completely avoided, despite technical improvements and the increased experience of the operators using this therapeutic modality. Moreover, the risk of late thrombosis following brachytherapy has been reduced, but not abolished, by prolonged antiplatelet therapy.23,24 In this scenario, a definitive intervention would be desirable, especially considering these patients had already suffered a number of recurrent failures. Notably, repeat PCI was the most common choice at our institution, with 80.8% of the patients who failed brachytherapy treated with this modality. This is consistent with a previous report from the WRIST trial.12 Possible explanations for this choice include the high-risk baseline profile of many patients (who were therefore deemed unsuitable for coronary artery bypass graft surgery), coronary anatomy unfavorable for bypass surgery (for example, small vessel diameter), absence of disease in the left anterior descending coronary artery and patient preference. In our study, twenty-four percent of the patients had a previous coronary bypass operation. Coronary bypass reinterventions are associated with an operative mortality distinctly higher than the mortality of first-time operations, and carry a higher risk of perioperative complications, including reoperation for bleeding, perioperative myocardial infarction, and neurological and pulmonary problems.25
Our study confirms that the risk of late vessel occlusion after reintervention for failed brachytherapy remains in a sizable proportion (6.2%). In one-third of these cases, this led to an acute myocardial infarction. This was especially true for patients in whom a new stent was implanted. Although this phenomenon is well known when a new stent is implanted at the time of irradiation, it has not been described after a subsequent reintervention. The most likely explanations are long-term endothelial dysfunction and delayed vascular healing, two established drawbacks of vessel irradiation.26
DES may have a role in the management of patients who have failed brachytherapy. However, preliminary results suggest that sirolimus-eluting stents, which have been proven to be very effective in other clinical settings,27–29 seem to have a reduced efficacy for recurrent restenosis after failed brachytherapy.30 Thus, although more extensive evaluation is necessary, it seems unlikely that drug-eluting stents could further improve the results in this “biologically modified” environment.
Conclusion. The results of the present study suggest that patients treated with coronary brachytherapy have a consistent risk for repeat interventions at the irradiated segment in the long-term. Percutaneous reintervention is the most common choice. With this strategy, rates of MACE and further reinterventions are contained, although not negligible, with a residual risk of vessel occlusion, especially when a new stent is implanted. Percutaneous reintervention appears to be a reasonable therapeutic option for this complex iatrogenic pathology. |
1. Waksman R, Rodriguez JC, Robinson KA, et al. Effect of intravascular irradiation on cell proliferation, apoptosis, and vascular remodeling after balloon overstretch injury of porcine coronary arteries. Circulation 1997;96:1944–1952.
2. Verin V, Popowski Y, de Bruyne B, et al. Endoluminal beta-radiation therapy for the prevention of coronary restenosis after balloon angioplasty. The Dose-Finding Study Group. N Engl J Med 2001;344:243–249.
3. Meerkin D, Joyal M, Tardif JC, et al. Two-year angiographic follow-up of intracoronary 90Sr therapy for restenosis prevention after balloon angioplasty. Circulation 2002;106:539–543.
4. Serruys PW, Sianos G, van der Giessen W, et al. Intracoronary beta-radiation to reduce restenosis after balloon angioplasty and stenting: The Beta Radiation in Europe (BRIE) study. Eur Heart J 2002;23:1351–1359.
5. Leon MB, Teirstein PS, Moses JW, et al. Localized intracoronary gamma-radiation therapy to inhibit the recurrence of restenosis after stenting. N Engl J Med 2001;344:250–256.
6. Raizner AE, Oesterle SN, Waksman R, et al. Inhibition of restenosis with beta-emitting radiotherapy: Report of the Proliferation Reduction with Vascular Energy Trial (PREVENT). Circulation 2000;102:951–958.
7. Teirstein PS, Massullo V, Jani S, et al. Catheter-based radiotherapy to inhibit restenosis after coronary stenting. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1697–1703.
8. Waksman R, White RL, Chan RC, et al. Intracoronary gamma-radiation therapy after angioplasty inhibits recurrence in patients with in-stent restenosis. Circulation 2000;101:2165–2171.
9. Waksman R, Bhargava B, White L, et al. Intracoronary beta-radiation therapy inhibits recurrence of in-stent restenosis. Circulation 2000;101:1895–1898.
10. Grise MA, Massullo V, Jani S, et al. Five-year clinical follow-up after intracoronary radiation: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Circulation 2002;105:2737–2740.
11. Prpic R, Teirstein PS, Reilly JP, et al. Long-term outcome of patients treated with repeat percutaneous coronary intervention after failure of gamma-brachytherapy for the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Circulation 2002;106:2340–2345.
12. Ajani AE, Waksman R, Cheneau E, et al. The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with in-stent restenosis who failed intracoronary radiation therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:551–556.
13. Kuntz R, Speiser B, Joyal M, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcomes after use of Sr-90 beta-radiation for the treatment of de novo and restenotic coronary lesions. Presented at the Congress of the American College of Cardiology, Orlando, Florida, March, 2001.
14. Urban P, Serruys P, Baumgart D, et al. A multicentre European registry of intraluminal coronary beta-brachytherapy. Eur Heart J 2003;24:604–612.
15. King SB III, Williams DO, Chougule P, et al. Endovascular beta-radiation to reduce restenosis after coronary balloon angioplasty: Results of the beta energy restenosis trial (BERT). Circulation 1998;97:2025–2030.
16. Coen VL, Knook AH, Wardeh AJ, et al. Endovascular brachytherapy in coronary arteries: The Rotterdam experience. Cardiovasc Radiat Med 2000;2:42–50.
17. Sabate M, Kay IP, Gijzel AL, et al. Compassionate use of intracoronary beta-irradiation for treatment of recurrent in-stent restenosis. J Invas Cardiol 1999;11:582–588.
18. Sabate M, Costa MA, Kozuma K, et al. Geographic miss: A cause of treatment failure in radio-oncology applied to intracoronary radiation therapy. Circulation 2000;101:2467–2471.
19. Costa MA, Sabate M, van der Giessen WJ, et al. Late coronary occlusion after intracoronary brachytherapy. Circulation 1999;100:789–792.
20. Waksman R, Bhargava B, Mintz GS, et al. Late total occlusion after intracoronary brachytherapy for patients with in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:65–68.
21. Kay IP, Wardeh AJ, Kozuma K, et al. Radioactive stents delay but do not prevent in-stent neointimal hyperplasia. Circulation 2001;103:14–17.
22. Kay IP, Sabate M, Van Langenhove G, et al. Outcome from balloon induced coronary artery dissection after intracoronary beta-radiation. Heart 2000;83:332–337.
23. Waksman R, Ajani AE, White RL, et al. Prolonged antiplatelet therapy to prevent late thrombosis after intracoronary gamma-radiation in patients with in-stent restenosis: Washington Radiation for In-Stent Restenosis Trial plus 6 months of clopidogrel (WRIST PLUS). Circulation 2001;103:2332–2335.
24. Waksman R, Ajani AE, Pinnow E, et al. Twelve versus six months of clopidogrel to reduce major cardiac events in patients undergoing gamma-radiation therapy for in-stent restenosis: Washington Radiation for In-Stent Restenosis Trial (WRIST) 12 Versus WRIST PLUS. Circulation 2002;106:776–778.
25. Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to revise the 1991 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery). J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34:1262–1346.
26. Cheneau E, John MC, Fournadjiev J, et al. Time course of stent endothelialization after intravascular radiation therapy in rabbit iliac arteries. Circulation 2003;107:2153–2158.
27. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1773–1780.
28. Sousa JE, Costa MA, Abizaid A, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: A quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation 2003;107:24–27.
29. Degertekin M, Regar E, Tanabe K, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stent for treatment of complex in-stent restenosis. The first clinical experience. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:184–189.
30. Saia F, Lemos PA, Sianos G, et al. Effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for recurrent in-stent restenosis after brachytherapy. Am J Cardiol 2003;92:200–203.
|
| The Journal of Invasive Cardiology - ISSN: 1042-3931 - Volume 16 - Issue 2: February 2004 - February 2004 - Pages: 60 - 64 | |
|
 Create a Successful Vena Cava Filter Practice
Accredited CD
This activity is supported by an educational grant from Cook Incorporated and has been designed for Interventional Cardiologists, Vascular Surgeons, Fellows and Interventional Cardiovascular Nurses and Technologists.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
 Achieving Optimal Outcomes in Carotid Stenting: Lessons Learned from Recent Clinical Trials
Complimentary Accredited ON DEMAND Webcast
Topics
1. EVA-3S & Space-Bumps in the road
2. CAPTURE 3500-Lesion morphology & Predictors for Stroke
3. CAPTURE II vs. EXACT 1500-Does open or Closed Cell Stent design really matter?
This activity has been developed for Interventional Cardiologists, Vascular Surgeons, Interventional Radiologists, Neurologists, Interventional Nurses and Technologists with an interest in the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral artery disease. |
|
 Anticoagulation Techniques for Peripheral Vascular Interventions
Complimentary Accredited ON DEMAND Webcast
This activity has been developed for Interventional Cardiologists, Vascular Surgeons, Interventional Radiologists, Podiatric Physicians, Endovascular Allied Professionals, Endocrinologists, Wound Care Specialists, Directors of the Wound Care Clinic, and Primary Care Physicians, Pharmacists, Nurses and Technologists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 2007 Supplement
|
On-Demand Webcast
|
Archived Webcast
|
|
|
|
|
|
About HMP Communications
HMP Communications LLC (HMP) is the authoritative source for comprehensive information and education servicing healthcare professionals. HMP’s products include peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical journals, national tradeshows and conferences, online programs and customized clinical programs. HMP is a wholly owned subsidiary of HMP Communications Holdings LLC, which also owns the North American Center for Continuing Medical Education (NACCME). NACCME provides a wide array of accredited CME offerings with industry thought leaders participating in roundtable meetings, webcasts, symposia, conferences, seminars, podcasts and satellite programs. Discover more about HMP’s products and services at www.hmpcommunications.com. ©2008 HMP Communications |
© 2008 HMP Communications | All Rights Reserved
83 General Warren Blvd, Suite 100 | Malvern, PA 19355 | 800.237.7285
|
|
| | |
Presented By: 
Release Date: December 8, 2006