IMAGE IN CARDIOLOGY

DOI: 10.4244/EIJV10I3A57

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation for recurrent in-stent restenosis: an option in case of multiple failures?

Alfonso Ielasi, MD; Antonio Saino, MD; Antonio Silvestro, MD; Davide Personeni, MD; Maurizio Tespili*, MD

An 80-year-old male underwent coronary angiography for unstable angina. He had a history of multiple PCI in the LCx towards OM1 due to recurrent in-stent restenosis (ISR) (bare metal stent-ISR treated with drug-eluting stent [DES]; DES-ISR treated with cutting and non-compliant [NC] balloons; new DES-ISR treated with drug-eluting balloon). The angiography showed a recalcitrant multifocal ISR on OM1 (Figure 1A, Figure 1B). Although off-label, we treated the ISR with two (3.5×18 mm and 3.5×28 mm) bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS; Absorb™; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) implanted in overlap from distal to proximal OM1. Post-dilatation was performed with a 3.5×21 mm NC balloon. Final angiographic (Figure 1C, Figure 1D) and IVUS (Figure 1E, Figure 1F) results were good as well as six-month angiographic follow-up (Online Figure 1A, Online Figure 1B). These images show that BVS may be an option in case of recalcitrant ISR after failure of the conventional treatment.

Figure 1. A) & B) Restenosis in the distal and proximal OM1 at baseline angiography. Final angiographic (C & D) and IVUS results at the proximal (E) and distal (F) ISR sites following in-stent BVS implantation.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Online Figure 1. A) & B) Six-month angiographic follow-up showing patency of the OM1 segment treated with in-stent BVS implantation.

Moving image 1. Pre-PCI IVUS pullback from the distal to proximal OM1 showing multiple strut layers and multifocal ISR.

Moving image 2. Final IVUS pullback following BVS implantation from distal to proximal OM1.

Volume 10 Number 3
Jul 21, 2014
Volume 10 Number 3
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

IMAGE IN CARDIOLOGY

10.4244/EIJY14M10_07 Nov 20, 2015
Subacute thrombosis of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold implanted for recurrent in-stent restenosis
Rivero F et al
free

Image – Interventional flashlight

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00063 Jan 20, 2021
Late structural discontinuity after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in patients with in-stent restenosis
Cuesta J et al
free

10.4244/EIJV11SVA42 May 19, 2015
Treatment of bioresorbable scaffold failure
Felix C et al
free

10.4244/EIJV11I12A280 Mar 18, 2016
Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for recurrent in-stent restenosis
Rivero F et al
free
Trending articles
318.3

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00695 Nov 19, 2021
Transcatheter treatment for tricuspid valve disease
Praz F et al
free
116.85

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00066 Apr 21, 2025
Management of complications after valvular interventions
Bansal A et al
free
108.3

Viewpoint

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00007 May 15, 2022
TAVI at 20: how a crazy idea led to a clinical revolution
Eltchaninoff H et al
free
91.6

Image – Interventional flashlight

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00344 Aug 5, 2022
First dedicated transcatheter leaflet splitting device: the ShortCut device
Tchétché D et al
free
68.9

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00992 Sep 15, 2025
Antithrombotic therapy in complex percutaneous coronary intervention
Castiello D et al
free
42.95

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00145 Sep 20, 2021
Robotics, imaging, and artificial intelligence in the catheterisation laboratory
Beyar R et al
free
X

PCR
Impact factor: 9.5
2024 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2025)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved