The disappointing results of PTCA in the uraemic patient—are stents the answer?

Christlieb Haller and Wolfgang Kübler

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Priv. Doz. Dr C. Haller, Department of Internal Medicine III, University of Heidelberg, Bergheimerstr. 58, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany.

Introduction

Patients with renal failure, especially patients with end-stage renal disease, have high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, to a large extent due to coronary artery disease. As a result uraemic patients frequently undergo coronary intervention, but the long-term outcome of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) has been disappointing, mainly because of accelerated re-stenosis. A re-stenosis rate of up to 81% after initially successful PTCA has been reported, and even higher rates for repeat angioplasties [1]. In another study the 5-year cardiac-event-free rate was 70% in dialysis patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting compared with only 18% in patients who had received PTCA [2]. Some authors concluded that PTCA may not be justified in patients with uraemic coronary artery disease because of an unacceptably high re-stenosis and cardiac-event rate [3].

Recently the placement of intracoronary stents during PTCA has become the procedure of choice for many types of coronary artery lesions, especially in proximal segments of the major coronary conduit vessels [4]. The implantation of stents has greatly reduced the need for emergency coronary artery surgery. The angiographic and clinical success rate of coronary stenting is superior compared with `simple' angioplasty [4,5], although diffuse in-stent-re-stenosis due to a proliferative response of the vascular wall remains a problem. Re-stenosis rates after stenting are mostly between 20 and 30%, but may exceed 50% in small vessels and complex lesions in patients with diabetes [6].

Role of antiplatelet therapy

The success of coronary artery stenting can be attributed to technical advances in stent deployment and most importantly to effective antithrombotic therapy. The latter is a precondition for successful stenting, since acute stent thrombosis is a recognized complication of intracoronary stents. In the early days of coronary stenting all patients received full therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin, starting immediately after stent implantation followed by oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists. In addition to systemic anticoagulation platelet function was inhibited by aspirin. However, even full anticoagulation and aspirin did not completely prevent stent thrombosis. In the meantime we have learned that platelet-dependent mechanisms are more important than plasmatic coagulation in the pathogenesis of acute stent thrombosis. Therefore current stent regimens focus on the inhibition of platelet function.

The central event in platelet-induced thrombus formation is the binding of fibrinogen to the activated platelet surface via the membrane glycoprotein IIb/IIIa. This interaction of platelets and fibrinogen can be selectively inhibited by the monoclonal anti-gpIIb/IIIa antibody abciximab or by a variety of non-antibody drugs. Gp IIb/IIIa antagonists play an important role in the management of acute coronary syndromes and/or complications of angioplasty/stenting [7,8]. For routine stenting orally active drugs are generally preferred. The time-honoured antiplatelet drug is aspirin. It inhibits platelet function by irreversibly blocking cyclo-oxygenase, thereby inactivating the thromboxane pathway of platelets. Recently a new group of antiplatelet drugs, the thienopyridines, have been introduced into clinical practice. These compounds inhibit platelet function by interfering with the ADP-mediated activation of platelets. Like aspirin, the thienopyridines inhibit platelet function irreversibly, i.e. platelet inhibition persists until new platelets are released from the bone marrow. Unlike aspirin the thienopyridines are not active in vitro, since they have to undergo biotransformation into their active form in vivo. The first generation thienopyridine ticlopidine requires twice daily administration and may (rarely) cause bone marrow suppression; therefore monitoring the blood count is necessary during therapy with this substance. The newer thienopyridine clopidogrel does not induce this complication and may be given once daily. In coronary stenting it is current practice to prescribe aspirin and one of the thienopyridines. The dual inhibition of platelet function with aspirin and ticlopidine induces less bleeding complications than vitamin K antagonists [9] and effectively lowers the risk of coronary stent thrombosis [10]; more recently this benefit has also been shown for the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel [11].

Can stents improve the outcome of PTCA in uraemic patients?

Coronary artery stenting has clearly improved the immediate and long-term success rate of coronary angioplasty, although in-stent-re-stenosis remains a problem. Currently it is not clear whether the benefits of stenting also apply to the uraemic patient. Stents improve the immediate procedural results of PTCA by several mechanisms including diminished elastic recoil of the vascular wall and effective management of angioplasty-related coronary artery dissections. While these benefits should also apply to uraemic patients, other anatomic and/or pathophysiological factors which may be unique to uraemic coronary artery disease could be less amenable to stenting. Since the stenotic coronary lesions in patients with ESRD are often heavily calcified, `rota-stenting', i.e. a combination of rotational arterectomy and coronary artery stenting [12] may be a particularly useful interventional treatment option which warrants further evaluation in these patients.

In the overall patient population the single most important factor for stent success has been the improved management of thrombotic complications. Therefore one could argue that patients with renal failure derive only marginal benefit from the newer antiplatelet regimens, since platelet function is already impaired in uraemia. On the other hand, uraemic patients could be ideal stent recipients benefiting from the procedural success of stenting with a lower risk of stent thrombosis because of their compromised platelet function. It may even turn out that patients with chronic renal failure require less antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of stent thrombosis than other patients with arteriosclerosis, which could reduce drug-related complications and cost. One trial in non-uraemic patients has shown a similar short-term outcome in patients treated with aspirin alone compared to combined aspirin/ticlopidine therapy after optimized stent implantation [13].

Currently no data from prospective controlled trials are available on the long-term outcome of coronary artery stenting in uraemic stent recipients. Similarly no controlled evidence is available concerning the need for or risk of antiplatelet therapy in patients with renal failure. One retrospective analysis has shown that percutaneous coronary revascularization with new devices, e.g. stents, rotational arterectomy, is technically more successful than standard PTCA in patients with renal failure, but the significant comorbidity of these patients is reflected by the incidence of adverse cardiac events [14]. Other authors have reported a better outcome of coronary revascularization by stent implantation in uraemic patients [15]. The current clinical experience with coronary artery stenting in patients with renal failure is encouraging and should stimulate the further evaluation of interventional treatment options, in particular `rota-stenting', in uraemic coronary artery disease.

References

  1. Kahn JK, Rutherford BD, McConahay DR, Johnson WL, Giorgi LV, Hartzler GO. Short- and long-term outcome of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in chronic dialysis patients. Am Heart J 1990; 119: 484–489[ISI][Medline]
  2. Koyanagi T, Nishida H, Kitamura M et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in renal dialysis patients. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 61: 1793–1796[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Simsir SA, Kohlman-Trigoboff D, Flood R, Lindsay J, Smith BM. A comparison of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in patients on hemodialysis. Cardiovasc Surg 1998; 6: 500–505[ISI][Medline]
  4. Versaci F, Gaspardone A, Tomai F, Crea F, Chiariello L, Gioffre PA. A comparison of coronary-artery stenting with angioplasty for isolated stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 817–822[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Serruys PW, Jaegere Pd, Kiemeneij F et al. A comparison of balloon-expandable stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 489–495[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Elezi S, Kastrati A, Neumann FJ, Hadamitzky M, Dirschinger J, Schömig A. Vessel size and long-term outcome after coronary stent placement. Circulation 1998; 98: 1875–1880[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Kereiakes DJ, Lincoff AM, Miller DP. Abciximab therapy and unplanned coronary stent deployment. Favorable effects on stent use, clinical outcomes and bleeding complications. Circulation 1998; 97: 857–864[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. The RESTORE Investigators. Effects of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade with tirofiban on adverse cardiac events in patients with unstable angina or acute myocardial infarction undergoing coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1997; 96: 1445–1453[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Schömig A, Neumann FJ, Kastrati A et al. A randomized comparison of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after the placement of coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 1084–1089[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Leon MB, Baim DS, Popma JJ et al. A clinical trial comparing three antithrombotic drug regimens after coronary-artery stenting. Stent anticoagulation re-stenosis study investigators. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1665–1671[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Moussa I, Oetgen M, Roubin G et al. Effectiveness of clopidogrel and aspirin versus ticlopidine and aspirin in preventing stent thrombosis after coronary stent implantation. Circulation 1999; 99: 2364–2366[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Lasala JM, Reisman M. Rotablator plus stent therapy (rotastent). Curr Opin Cardiol 1998; 13: 240–247[ISI][Medline]
  13. Albiero R, Hall P, Itoh A et al. Results of a consecutive series of patients receiving only antiplatelet therapy after optimized stent implantation. Comparison of aspirin alone vs combined ticlopidine and aspirin therapy. Circulation 1997; 95: 1145–1156[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Rubenstein M, Harrell L, Bazari H, Palacios IF. Are patients with renal failure good candidates for percutaneous coronary revascularization in the new device era? Circulation 1998; 98: 768 (Abstract)
  15. Collins A, Ma J, Herzog C. PTCA plus stent have a superior revascularization outcome in dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998; 9: A1042 (Abstract)




This Article
Extract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Haller, C.
Articles by Kübler, W.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Haller, C.
Articles by Kübler, W.