A comparison of procedural success rate and long-term clinical outcomes between in-stent restenosis chronic total occlusion and de novo chronic total occlusion using multicenter registry data

Background There have been little data about outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) chronic total occlusion (CTO) in the drug eluting stent (DES) era. This study aimed to compare the procedural success rate and long-term clinical outcomes of ISR CTO and de novo CTO. Methods and results Patients who underwent PCI for ISR CTO ( n = 164) versus de novo CTO ( n = 1208) were enrolled from three centers in Korea between January 2008 and December 2014. Among a total of ISR CTO, a proportion of DES ISR CTO was 79.3% ( n = 130). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs); a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Following propensity score-matching (1:3), the ISR CTO group ( n = 156) had a higher success rate (84.6% vs. 76.0%, p = 0.035), mainly driven by high success rate of PCI for DES ISR CTO (88.6%), but showed a higher incidence of MACEs [hazard ratio (HR): 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37–3.09; p