Stent expansion: a combination of delivery balloon underexpansion and acute stent recoil reduces predicted stent diameter irrespective of reference vessel size

被引:39
作者
Aziz, Shahid
Morris, John L.
Perry, Raphael A.
Stables, Rodney H.
机构
[1] Royal Blackburn Hosp, Dept Cardiol, Blackburn, Lancs, England
[2] Ctr Cardiothorac, Dept Cardiol, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
关键词
D O I
10.1136/hrt.2006.107052
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: There is a strong inverse relationship between final vessel diameter and subsequent risk of treatment failure after coronary stent deployment. The aim of this study was to investigate the magnitude by which stent delivery balloon underexpansion and stent elastic recoil contributed to suboptimal final vessel geometry. Methods: A prospective angiographic study recruiting 499 lesions ( 385 patients) undergoing coronary stent implantation was performed. Quantitative coronary angiography ( QCA) was used to measure the minimal lumen diameters of the delivery balloon during stent deployment ( MLD1) and of the stented segment following balloon deflation ( MLD2). The expected balloon diameter for the deployment pressure was determined from the manufacturer's reference chart. Delivery balloon deficit was measured by subtracting the MLD1 from the expected balloon size and stent recoil was calculated by subtracting MLD2 from MLD1. Delivery balloon deficit and stent recoil were examined as a function of reference vessel diameter ( RVD) and balloon - vessel ( BV) ratio. Results: The final stent MLD was a mean 27.2% ( SD = 7.2) less than the predicted diameter. The mean delivery balloon deficit was 0.65 mm ( SD = 0.27) and the mean stent recoil was 0.28 mm ( SD = 0.17). Percentage delivery balloon deficit and stent recoil were independent of RVD. Delivery balloon deficit increased with higher BV ratios. Stent recoil was independent of BV ratio and the use of predilatation. Conclusion: Failure to achieve predicted final stent diameter is a real problem with contribution from delivery balloon underexpansion and stent recoil. On average the final stent MLD is only 73% of the expected diameter, irrespective of vessel size.
引用
收藏
页码:1562 / 1566
页数:5
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   Clinical and angiographic outcome of directional atherectomy followed by stent implantation in de novo lesions located at the ostium of the left anterior descending coronary artery [J].
Airoldi, F ;
Di Mario, C ;
Stankovic, G ;
Briguori, C ;
Carlino, M ;
Chieffo, A ;
Liistro, F ;
Montorfano, M ;
Pagnotta, P ;
Spanos, V ;
Tavano, D ;
Colombo, A .
HEART, 2003, 89 (09) :1050-1054
[2]  
Bakhai A, 2005, INT J CARDIOL, V102, P95, DOI 10.1016/j.ijcard.2004.04.001
[3]  
Barragan P, 2000, CATHETER CARDIO INTE, V50, P112, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1522-726X(200005)50:1<112::AID-CCD25>3.0.CO
[4]  
2-X
[5]   Mechanisms of residual lumen stenosis after high-pressure stent implantation -: A quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound study [J].
Bermejo, J ;
Botas, J ;
García, E ;
Elízaga, J ;
Osende, J ;
Soriano, J ;
Abeytua, M ;
Delcán, JL .
CIRCULATION, 1998, 98 (02) :112-118
[6]   Is adjunctive balloon postdilatation necessary after coronary stent deployment? Final results from the POSTIT trial [J].
Brodie, BR ;
Cooper, C ;
Jones, M ;
Fitzgerald, P ;
Cummins, F .
CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2003, 59 (02) :184-192
[7]   Quantitative coronary angiographic and intravascular ultrasound assessment of a new nonarticulated stent: Report from the advanced cardiovascular systems MultiLink stent pilot study [J].
Carrozza, JP ;
Hermiller, JB ;
Linnemeier, TJ ;
Popma, JJ ;
Yock, PG ;
Roubin, GS ;
Dean, LS ;
Kuntz, RE ;
Robertson, L ;
Ho, KKL ;
Cutlip, DE ;
Baim, DS .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 1998, 31 (01) :50-56
[8]  
Danzi GB, 2001, CATHETER CARDIO INTE, V52, P147, DOI 10.1002/1522-726X(200102)52:2<147::AID-CCD1038>3.0.CO
[9]  
2-B
[10]   CAAS-II - A 2ND GENERATION SYSTEM FOR OFF-LINE AND ONLINE QUANTITATIVE CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY [J].
GRONENSCHILD, E ;
JANSSEN, J ;
TIJDENS, F .
CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR DIAGNOSIS, 1994, 33 (01) :61-75