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.
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.
Authors: Y Takano; L A Yeatman; J R Higgins; J W Currier; E Ascencio; K A Kopelson; J M Tobis Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: F Airoldi; C Di Mario; G Stankovic; C Briguori; M Carlino; A Chieffo; F Liistro; M Montorfano; P Pagnotta; V Spanos; D Tavano; A Colombo Journal: Heart Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: I Moussa; C Di Mario; J Moses; B Reimers; L Di Francesco; G Martini; J Tobis; A Colombo Journal: Circulation Date: 1997-07-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christoph Hehrlein; Jennifer J DeVries; Amina Arab; Scott D Haller; Ann Kloostra; Michael A Lauer; Malcom T Foster; Tim A Fischell Journal: J Invasive Cardiol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.022
Authors: C Hehrlein; J J DeVries; T A Wood; S D Haller; A Arab; A C Kloostra; M A Lauer; T A Fischell Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: P Barragan; R Rieu; V Garitey; P O Roquebert; J Sainsous; M Silvestri; G Bayet Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: J P Carrozza; J B Hermiller; T J Linnemeier; J J Popma; P G Yock; G S Roubin; L S Dean; R E Kuntz; L Robertson; K K Ho; D E Cutlip; D S Baim Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Bruce R Brodie; Christopher Cooper; Michael Jones; Peter Fitzgerald; Frank Cummins Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jaya Chandrasekhar; Christopher Allada; Simon O'Connor; Moyazur Rahman; Bruce Shadbolt; Ahmad Farshid Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vessel Date: 2014-03-19