4.1 Article

Chronic stent recoil plays an important role in restenosis of the right coronary ostium

Journal

CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 39-44

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00019501-200402000-00006

Keywords

aorto-ostial lesion; stent; restenosis; intravascular ultrasonics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The efficacy of coronary stenting of aorto-ostial atherosclerotic lesions is still unclear. We investigated the frequency and mechanism of stent restenosis at this particular lesion. Methods Fifty-five consecutive patients with 64 native aorto-ostial lesions in the right coronary artery (RCA, n = 38) and the left main trunk (LM, n = 26) were treated by conventional stenting. Determinants of angiographic restenosis were established. The mechanism of stent restenosis was evaluated using post-stenting and follow-up intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) findings. Results Restenosis was more frequent in the RCA than in the LM (50% compared with 19%, P < 0.03) and determinants included diabetes mellitus (63% compared with 21%, P < 0.03), calcium deposition (58% compared with 5%, P < 0.003), smaller stent cross-sectional area (SA) (as demonstrated by post-stenting IVUS studies, 8.1 +/- 1.4 mm(2) compared with 10.2 +/- 2.2 mm(2), p < 0.01), larger plaque burden (64 +/- 6% compared with 57 +/- 8%, P < 0.03) and less circular expansion at the aorto-coronary junction. Serial IVUS examination was performed in 11 patients with restenosis of the right coronary ostium. The mean reduction in the SA was 21% at the aorto-coronary junction (6.4 +/- 1.9 mm(2), P < 0.003), whereas the SA at the distal edge was unchanged. Thirty-three per cent of late luminal loss was due to chronic stent recoil. Conclusion These findings suggest that stenosis of the right coronary ostium is a high-risk lesion for stent restenosis. In addition to excessive intimal growth, chronic stent recoil might be an important etiologic factor at this particular location.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available