In-stent restenosis: surgical and histopathological perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-119
Author(s):  
Balaji Srimurugan ◽  
Matthias Sigler ◽  
Nainar Madhu Sankar ◽  
Kotturathu Mammen Cherian

Background In-stent restenosis has been recognized as a distinct clinical entity that warrants a repeat procedure either in the form of percutaneous reintervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. Multivessel grafting with endarterectomy and explantation of the stent is rarely performed, with few cases reported in the literature. We aim to study the pathomorphology of the stent-vascular interface in coronary vessels undergoing in-stent restenosis. Methods Over a period of 3 years, 3 patients who had undergone angioplasty for diffuse coronary artery disease developed in-stent restenosis and were advised coronary artery bypass. The mean age was 53 years, the average time from the previous intervention was 77 months. Coronary endarterectomy with stent removal and concomitant multivessel coronary artery bypass was performed. Results Histology showed significant proliferation of the well-endothelialized intima as the reason for in-stent restenosis. There were no signs of local thrombus formation or increased inflammatory activity in any of the specimens. After coronary artery bypass, all patients were asymptomatic at a mean follow-up of 32 months. Conclusion Coronary endarterectomy with stent explantation and multivessel coronary artery bypass is a procedure that requires attention because the need is increasing due to the rise in the number of angioplasties. The complexity of this procedure increases to the extent that the adventitia is involved during stent explantation.

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-90
Author(s):  
Redoy Ranjan ◽  
Dipannita Adhikary ◽  
Heemel Saha ◽  
Sanjoy Kumar Saha ◽  
Sabita Mandal ◽  
...  

Coronary endarterectomy is first described as an alternative surgical procedure for myocardial revascularization against diffuse coronary artery disease by Baily et al. in 1956. Coronary endarterectomy provides complete surgical revascularization of the myocardium in diffuse and calcified coronary arteries with adequate blood flow to distal part of occluded arteries, thus improving ventricular function. However, the initial outcomes of coronary endarterectomy were not satisfactory but now-a-days different studies have shown that coronary endarterectomy with coronary artery bypass grafting can be done safely with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Moreover, the graft patency rate on angiographic evaluation is also good following coronary endarterectomy. So, it’s time to reevaluate this old techniques, and reanalysis the current outcomes of coronary endarterectomy and readdress its indication in diffuse coronary artery diseaseCardiovasc. j. 2017; 10(1): 84-90


2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 124-131
Author(s):  
R Ranjan ◽  
AB Adhikary

Background: Coronary Endarterectomy (CE) is the expulsion of the atheromatous plaque, and isolating the outer media and adventitia layers of arterial wall. Objective of this study was to review the consequences of coronary endarterectomy (CE) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and demonstrate the outcomes of this surgical technique for patients with diffuse coronary artery disease in a single surgeon’s practice. Methods: Retrospectively outcome of 1473 endarterectomised coronary artery in 1189 patients with diffuse coronary artery disease (CAD) was reviewed, who have had experienced CE with OPCABG in the year of 2007 to 2016. CE was performed in multi-segmental diffuse CAD, or when a calcified or extremely thick plaque making anastomosis troublesome. Results: Approximately 75.0% coronary endarterectomy were performed in the left coronary territory and most commonly left anterior descending artery was endarterectomized (42.83%). An average of 1.2 coronary endarterectomies performed per patient. Post-operative ICU and 30-days mortality rate was 2.2%, and 0.6% respectively in CE group. Post-operative atrial fibrillation, acute MI, neurological complication, and blood transfusion were significantly higher in CE group. Following CE, Kaplan–Meier cumulative survival rate was 89.5%, and about 85% patients were free from angina at follow-up of 5 years. Conclusion: Coronary endarterectomy with OPCABG is attainable, and accomplishes surgical revascularization in patients; when there is no other alternative for total myocardial revascularization. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 2018; 44: 124-131


1970 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-73
Author(s):  
Masoom Siraj ◽  
Md Hamidur Rahman ◽  
Md Sharif Hassan

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a well established treatment modality for coronary artery disease (CAD). However with the trend towards aggressive per cutaneous interventions (PCI) by the cardiologists, more and more patients with poor quality, diffusely diseased coronary arteries are coming for CABG. Quite often these arteries require endarterectomy to ensure revascularisation. Initial experience world wide with coronary endarterectomy was bad enough for many surgeons not advocating it. However recent papers have shown greatly improved results.This was a retrospective study of five hundred consecutive patients undergoing CABG between 19th August 2006 and 1st of July 2008 at Ibrahim Cardiac Hospital and Research Institute (ICHRI). Pre-operative and Intra-operative variables which could influence outcome were analysed. Of the total patients who had at least one endarterectomy done were labeled as Endarterectomy (EA) group, while patients without endarterectomy were labeled as Control group.Post operative outcome showed results comparable to CABG without endarterectomy can be achieved. We have described our selection criteria and surgical technique. Our protocol did not bring about a statistically significant increase in bypass time, cross clamp time. It also did not change the number of grafts per patient.Our experience shows coronary endarterectomy can be done in order to achieve full revascularisation with very safe and acceptable outcome.Key words: CABG; Coronary endarterectomy DOI: 10.3329/uhj.v6i2.7247University Heart Journal Vol. 6, No. 2, July 2010 pp.70-73


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document