4.7 Article

Prevalence and clinical impact of stent fractures after femoropopliteal stenting

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 45, Issue 2, Pages 312-315

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.11.026

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence and the clinical impact of stent fractures after femoropopliteal stenting. BACKGROUND The development of femoral stent fractures has recently been described; however, there are no data about the frequency and the clinical relevance. METHODS A systematic X-ray screening for stent fractures was performed in 93 patients. In total, 121 legs treated by implantation of self-expanding nitinol stents were investigated after a mean follow-up time of 10.7 months. The mean length of the stented segment was 15.7 cm. RESULTS Overall, stent fractures were detected in 45 of 121 treated legs (37.2%). In a stent-based analysis, 64 of 261 stents (24.5%) showed fractures, which were classified as minor (single strut fracture) in 31 cases (48.4%), moderate (fracture of >1 strut) in 17 cases (26.6%), and severe (complete separation of stent segments) in 16 cases (25.0%). Fracture rates were 13.2% for stented length less than or equal to8 cm, 42.4% for stented length >8 to 16 cm and 52.0% for stented length >16 cm. In 21 cases (32.8%) there was a restenosis of >50% diameter reduction at the site of stent fracture. In 22 cases (34.4%) with stent fracture there was a total stent reocclusion. According to Kaplan-Meier estimates, the primary patency rate at 12 months was significantly lower for patients with stent fractures (41.1% vs. 84.3%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS There is a considerable risk of stent fractures after long segment femoral artery stenting, which is associated with a higher in-stent restenosis and reocclusion rate. (C) 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available