(Circulation. 1999;100:1777-1783.)
© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
Reference Chart Derived From Post–Stent-Implantation Intravascular Ultrasound Predictors of 6-Month Expected Restenosis on Quantitative Coronary Angiography
From University Hospital Rotterdam–Dijkzigt, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Correspondence to P.J. de Feyter, MD, University Hospital Rotterdam–Dijkzigt, Thoraxcenter Bd 377, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background—Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)–guided stent implantation and the availability of a reference chart to predict the expected in-stent restenosis rate based on operator-dependent IVUS parameters may interactively facilitate optimal stent placement. The use of IVUS guidance protects against undue risks of dissection or rupture.
Methods and Results—IVUS-determined post–stent-implantation predictors of 6-month in-stent restenosis on quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) were identified by logistic regression analysis. These predictors were used to construct a reference chart that predicts the expected 6-month QCA restenosis rate. IVUS and QCA data were obtained from 3 registries (MUSIC [Multicenter Ultrasound Stenting in Coronaries study], WEST-II [West European Stent Trial II], and ESSEX [European Scimed Stent EXperience]) and 2 randomized in-stent restenosis trials (ERASER [Evaluation of ReoPro And Stenting to Eliminate Restenosis] and TRAPIST [TRApidil vs placebo to Prevent In-STent intimal hyperplasia]). In-stent restenosis was defined as luminal diameter stenosis >50% by QCA. IVUS predictors were minimum and mean in-stent area, stent length, and in-stent diameter. Multiple models were constructed with multivariate logistic regression analysis. The model containing minimum in-stent area and stent length best fit the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. This model was used to construct a reference chart to calculate the expected 6-month restenosis rate.
Conclusions—The expected 6-month in-stent restenosis rate after stent implantation for short lesions in relatively large vessels can be predicted by use of in-stent minimal area (which is inversely related to restenosis) and stent length (which is directly related to restenosis), both of which can be read from a simple reference chart.
Key Words: ultrasonics • angiography • restenosis • stents
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Intracoronary stent implantation has unequivocally been shown to reduce the frequency of 6-month in-stent restenosis in focal lesions in relatively large coronary vessels.1 2 3 4 Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has successfully been used to guide stent implantation and often results in a wider stented lumen, which may, according to the "bigger is better" principle, further reduce the restenosis rate.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 In the present study, we sought to identify post–stent-implantation IVUS predictors of in-stent restenosis. These parameters are partly operator dependent and are available online; thus, they can be adjusted by the operator during actual stent implantation to achieve the best possible result.
We performed a meta-analysis to determine final
post–stent-implantation IVUS predictors of 6-month restenosis
(diameter stenosis 
50%) by quantitative coronary
angiography (QCA) after stent implantation in focal lesions and large
vessels. Patients were selected from 3 stent registries (MUSIC
[Multicenter Ultrasound Stenting in Coronaries study],14
WEST-II [West European Stent Trial II],22 and
ESSEX [European Scimed Stent EXperience]) and from 2
randomized trials investigating the efficacy of a pharmaceutical agent
on in-stent restenosis (ERASER [Evaluation of ReoPro And
Stenting to Eliminate Restenosis] and TRAPIST [TRApidil vs
placebo to Prevent In-STent intimal hyperplasia]). The latter 2 trials
did not demonstrate a significant difference between drugs and placebo,
and thus for the present study, all patients groups were combined.
The registries and trials have been considered together because the
IVUS and QCA analyses used were performed in the same core
laboratory.
The analysis was performed by a multistep approach. First, IVUS predictors for 6-month in-stent (QCA) restenosis were identified. Second, various univariate and multivariate models were constructed with these parameters to predict the observed restenosis. Third, models were selected that had the best fit on the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Finally, from the best-fit models, the model with the most easily obtainable and clinically relevant parameters was selected, and a reference chart was constructed that predicted the expected angiographic in-stent restenosis rate after stent implantation of short lesions in relative large vessels.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Patients were selected from 3 stent registries and 2 randomized restenosis trials (Table 1
). Only patients who underwent
single-lesion treatment were enrolled. Various stent types were
implanted: 2 balloon-expandable stents (15-mm Palmaz-Schatz, Cordis
Corp; and 15-mm Multi-Link, Guidant/Advanced
Cardiovascular Systems) and 2 self-expanding stents
(14-mm Radius, Scimed Life Systems; and the Wallstent, Schneider Europe
[various stent lengths]) were used. All registries and trials used
intracoronary ultrasound as guidance for optimal stent
implantation. Patients were included in the present study if they
had both an adequate final post–stent-implantation IVUS examination
and a 6-month coronary angiogram to establish the
restenosis rate. Six-month in-stent restenosis was
determined with QCA and was defined as an in-stent luminal diameter
stenosis 50%. The restenosis rate in the
above-mentioned studies varied from 9.8% to 25.7%.
|
Baseline clinical characteristics are shown in Table 2. Overall, there were only small
differences between the various patient groups except for the severity
of angina, which was less severe in the WEST-II and ESSEX registries,
and the higher frequency of prior myocardial infarction in the ERASER
and TRAPIST randomized trials.
|
Intravascular Ultrasound
Three different intracoronary ultrasound imaging devices
were used. The CVIS (Microview) has a 30-MHz single-element
bevelled transducer mounted on the end of a flexible shaft that rotates
at 1800 rpm within either a 2.9F echotransparent
long-monorail/common-distal-lumen imaging sheath or within a 3.2F
short-monorail imaging sheath. The Hewlett-Packard/Boston Scientific
Corp device incorporates a single-element 30-MHz bevelled monorail
transducer that rotates at 1800 rpm within a 3.5F short-monorail
imaging catheter. The Endosonics Europe device consists of 64 elements
mounted at the tip, and the coaxial catheter allows either a monorail
or an over-the-wire technique to be used.
IVUS imaging was performed during a motorized uniform pullback speed of 0.5 mm/s in all patients. The video signal was recorded on a high-resolution super-VHS tape. The videotape was used to obtain manual online in-stent IVUS measurements to guide stent implantation. In-stent diameter (mm), in-stent minimum area (mm2), and lumen measurements at the 3- to 5-mm reference area proximal and distal to the stented segment were obtained. Stent apposition to the vessel wall and symmetrical stent expansion were reviewed over the entire stented segment. Optimal IVUS-guided stent implantation was attempted with the MUSIC criteria (complete stent apposition, symmetrical expansion, and adequate in-stent cross-sectional area), but it was left to the discretion of the operator to stop further attempts to achieve these criteria if additional dilation might pose a significant risk of dissection or rupture.14
Quantitative IVUS Measurements
A Microsoft Windows-based contour-detection program was used for
automated 3D analysis of IVUS images. The contour-detection
program was performed in 2 steps. First, 2 longitudinal sections were
constructed from the 3D data set, and an automated contour-detection
algorithm determined lumen-intima and media-adventitia boundaries of
nonstented segments and lumen-stent boundary in stented segments. The
contour-detection program uses a minimum-cost–based algorithm. These
longitudinal contours were used to define regions of interest in the
individual cross-sectional IVUS images. Next, the regions of interest
were used to guide the second-final automated contour detection in
these cross sections. A cursor on the longitudinal sections indicated
the individual cross sections and allowed scrolling through the entire
cross-sectional data set, to allow the technician to assess the
automatically detected contours. These user-interactive adjustments
were made by "forcing" the contour through visually identified
contour points, which then resulted in an upgrading of the entire data
set (dynamic programming).
The automatic contour program allows for automated analysis of a maximum of 200 cross sections. The distance between 2 cross sections (slice thickness) therefore depends on the length of the segment of interest, with a minimum of 0.2 mm and a maximum of 0.5 mm.
In-stent IVUS measurements were as follows: in-stent minimum and mean diameter, in-stent mean and minimum area, stent volume, and stent length. Reference area measurements were the mean of the lumen area of the proximal and distal 5 mm of coronary lumen adjacent to the stent.
Volumes of total stent were calculated as
 |
The intraobserver and interobserver variabilities were <1.0%, and the SD of differences varied between 4% and 9.5%.16 17
Quantitative Coronary Angiography
The minimal in-stent lumen diameter was determined on an
end-diastolic frame by use of a computer-based
Coronary Angiography Analysis System (CAAS II: Pie
Medical). The edge-detection algorithm is based on the weighted sum of
the first- and second-derivative functions applied to the digitized
brightness silhouette.23
The diameter function of the coronary artery lumen was determined by computing the shortest distance between the edge points of the right and left boundaries. The minimum lumen diameter was defined as the shortest distance between all measured left and right boundaries. The interpolated diameter was based on a computer estimation of the original lumen diameter, determined at the site of the minimum lumen diameter by taking into account the diameter function of the proximal and distal references. The diameter stenosis was derived from the measured minimum lumen diameter and the interpolated reference diameter.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed with SAS
version 6.12. Quantitative data are given as mean±SD and qualitative
data as frequencies.
IVUS parameters concerning volumetric measurements were not
available in 
67% of the patients selected from the MUSIC trial
because a manual IVUS pullback was performed. Multiple IVUS
parameters were tested by univariate logistic
regression analysis to determine 6-month QCA restenosis
predictors. With multivariate logistic regression
analysis, multiple models containing IVUS
parameters predictive of 6-month restenosis were
constructed. These models were then tested by use of the
Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test to choose the most appropriate
model. In the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, an estimated event
probability is calculated from the observations by use of a model.
These observations are then sorted in order of their estimated event
probability and divided into 10 groups (g) of approximately equal
size. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic is obtained by
calculating the Pearson 
2 test from the 2xg
table of the observed and expected frequencies. The greater the
P value, the better the model fits the data.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The final post–stent-implantation IVUS measurements that were obtained in the various studies are tabulated in Table 3
. In the MUSIC registry, the largest
minimal in-stent cross-sectional area was achieved. The length of the
implanted stent was longer, and consequently the in-stent volume was
higher in the TRAPIST trial, which used Wallstents. The reference
vessel diameter was smallest in the ESSEX registry.
Univariate analysis of postprocedure final IVUS
parameters showed that type of stent and all dimensional
in-stent parameters except in-stent volume were significant
predictors of restenosis (Table 4).
|
|
Multiple models were constructed with the IVUS parameters
in univariate and multivariate
analyses. When the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was
used, 4 potentially appropriate models emerged (Table 5). One model was based on 1
parameter only (minimum in-stent area); the other 3 models
were based on 2 parameters, and all 3 used stent length in
combination with stent volume, mean stent area, or minimum stent area.
Addition of any third parameter to a model did not
significantly improve the predictive power. The combination of stent
length and minimum in-stent area was chosen as the most easily
obtainable and clinically relevant parameters. The observed
and expected restenosis rates of this model are depicted in
Figure 1. The model remained
accurate after the same analysis was performed with
exclusion of Wallstent patients (who are known to have a higher
restenosis rate), but the CIs were wider.
|
|
Next, a reference chart was developed (Table 6 and Figure 2) that can be used as a ready reference
to estimate the expected in-stent restenosis rate with stent
length and post–stent-implantation minimal in-stent area. The ranges
of the 2 variables were divided into 10 groups each. The expected
restenosis rate for the median of each range was calculated
along with the 95% CIs for that particular value. The expected
restenosis rate is given, as well as the CI.
|
|
The majority of observations were clustered around 15-mm-length stents
and a minimum in-stent area of 8 mm2 (Figure 3). Values in Table 6
that are
marked by asterisks were calculated by extrapolation from the model
because there were no actual observations in that range. The reference
chart in these ranges should be used with caution.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In-stent restenosis remains a significant clinical problem because it is difficult to treat. IVUS-guided stent implantation has optimized stent expansion, and the initial higher lumen area achieved has been associated with a lower 6-month restenosis rate.14 18 We reasoned that construction of a reference chart based on simple, easily obtainable, clinically relevant IVUS post–stent-implantation parameters that predicts the expected 6-month restenosis rate would be clinically useful. First, online knowledge of an expected restenosis rate based on IVUS-determined post–stent-implantation lumen dimensions and stent length obtained while the procedure is being performed may serve as an extra stimulus to attempt to achieve the best possible result of stent implantation, whereas IVUS guidance may reduce the undue risks of dissection or vessel rupture.12 Second, a priori knowledge of the expected restenosis rate based on the lesion length and vessel size, which are decisive in stent size and length selection, may be useful in counseling patients whether to select a percutaneous intervention or bypass surgery. Third, it may be helpful to discuss the probability of restenosis after stent implantation and accordingly plan closer monitoring of patients. Fourth, the reference chart may be helpful to plan and power future in-stent restenosis studies.
IVUS variables, including in-stent area, extent of preexisting plaque, smaller vessel size, stenting of total occlusions, and history of diabetes mellitus, as well as implantation of a long stent, have been shown to predict in-stent restenosis.10 20 21 24 25 26 In the present study, we found that 2 IVUS variables (minimum in-stent area and stent length) were strong predictors of 6-month restenosis. Using these 2 variables, it was possible for us to construct a reference chart that predicts the 6-month expected restenosis rate. Basically, the chart demonstrates that the widest in-stent area has the lowest restenosis rate, and the longer the implanted stent, the higher the restenosis rate. The achievement of maximal in-stent dimensions expressed in terms of diameter, area, or volume is in keeping with the "bigger is better" theory and thus is associated with a lesser likelihood of reaching the expected restenosis rate.8 10 13 20 27 28
The inverse relation of stent length and 6-month restenosis may be explained by the purely statistical fact that a longer stent has a higher chance of restenosis. However, a preexisting longer lesion, known to be associated with a higher restenosis rate, may be responsible. The inverse relation between stent length and restenosis may be taken as an argument for choosing a conservative stent-length implantation approach or "spot" stenting, but the efficacy of this approach should be tested in an appropriate randomized trial.
In the individual studies (Table 1), the restenosis rate
was higher in self-expanding stents than balloon-expandable stents,
which suggests that the stent design may be associated with differences
in restenosis rates. However, in the
multivariate analysis, once we used the
parameters of stent length and an area or volume
measurement, stent design did not retain significance. It has been
suggested that Wallstent implantation confers a higher
restenosis rate. Therefore, we performed an analysis
excluding Wallstent patients. The model was still accurate, but because
of the lesser number of observations, it obviously is less reliable,
with wider CIs.
We selected QCA at 6 months as our restenosis end point because the angiographic criterion of >50% diameter stenosis is a generally accepted criterion and can also be used, in contrast to IVUS-obtained restenosis parameters, in case of severe in-stent restenosis or a totally occluded stent.29
Study Limitations
The study was performed in patients with focal lesions in relative
large coronary vessels. Additional studies are needed to
confirm that our results are also applicable in smaller vessels or for
longer lesions.
Although this study was an analysis of >750 observations, the majority of these observations were clustered around a stent length of 15 mm and an in-stent minimum area of 8.0 mm2, and many fewer observations were obtained for other stent lengths and in-stent cross-sectional areas, so that refinements may be expected from calculations obtained from a much larger data bank that includes a wide variety of in-stent cross-sectional areas and stent lengths.
The inclusion of stent length as a predictor of restenosis may be confounded by other factors, such as overlap of stent, implantation of long stents to cover initial long lesion, or long dissection, all of which may influence restenosis. However, the inclusion of these observations would more reliably reflect real-world stenting.
Currently, there is a wide variety of stent types commercially available. Our data are only applicable to the Palmaz-Schatz, Multi-Link, Radius, and Wallstents. Other stent designs (for instance, Gianturco-Roubin30 ) may behave differently, and additional studies are needed to confirm the applicability of our reference chart to other stent types.
Conclusions
We constructed a reference chart that, by use of the
IVUS-determined length of the implanted stent and the minimum in-stent
area, predicted the 6-month QCA restenosis rate. Thus far, this
reference chart is only applicable for stent implantation in short
lesions in relatively large vessels. The reliability of this reference
chart must be confirmed in a prospective study.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We pay tribute to all investigators who were involved in the MUSIC, WEST-II, and ESSEX registries and ERASER and TRAPIST randomized trials, without whose efforts this study would not have been possible. We wish to thank the core laboratory technicians and database managers at Cardialysis Rotterdam. Finally, we thank Claudia Sprenger de Rover for expert secretarial assistance.
Received December 22, 1998; revision received July 7, 1999; accepted July 12, 1999.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, Schatz RA, Savage MP, Penn I, Detre K, Veltri L, Ricci D, Nobuyoshi M, Cleman M, Heuser R, Almond D, Teirstein PS, Fish D, Colombo A, Brinker J, Moses J, Shaknovich A, Hirschfeld J, Bailey S, Ellis S, Rake R, Goldberg S. A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease: Stent Restenosis Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:496–501.
2.
Serruys PW, de Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, Macaya C,
Rutsch W, Heyndrickx G, Emanuelsson H, Marco J, Legrand V, Materne P,
Belardi J, Sigwart U, Colombo A, Goy JJ, van den Heuvel P, Delcan J,
Morel MA. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with
balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease:
Benestent Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:489–495.
3.
Versaci F, Gaspardone A, Tomai F, Crea F, Chiariello
L, Gioffre PA. A comparison of coronary-artery stenting with
angioplasty for isolated stenosis of the proximal left anterior
descending coronary artery. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:817–822.
4. Serruys PW, van Hout B, Bonnier H, Legrand V, Garcia E, Macaya C, Sousa E, van der Giessen W, Colombo A, Seabra-Gomes R, Kiemeneij F, Ruygrok P, Ormiston J, Emanuelsson H, Fajadet J, Haude M, Klugmann S, Morel MA. Randomised comparison of implantation of heparin-coated stents with balloon angioplasty in selected patients with coronary artery disease (Benestent II). Lancet. 1998;352:673–681.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Goldberg SL, Colombo A, Nakamura S, Almagor Y, Maiello L, Tobis JM. Benefit of intracoronary ultrasound in the deployment of Palmaz-Schatz stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:996–1003.[Abstract]
6.
Mudra H, Klauss V, Blasini R, Kroetz M, Rieber J,
Regar E, Theisen K. Ultrasound guidance of Palmaz-Schatz
intracoronary stenting with a combined intravascular ultrasound
balloon catheter. Circulation. 1994;90:1252–1261.
7.
Colombo A, Hall P, Nakamura S, Almagor Y, Maiello L,
Martini G, Gaglione A, Goldberg SL, Tobis JM. Intracoronary
stenting without anticoagulation accomplished with intravascular
ultrasound guidance. Circulation. 1995;91:1676–1688.
8. Dussaillant GR, Mintz GS, Pichard AD, Kent KM, Satler LF, Popma JJ, Wong SC, Leon MB. Small stent size and intimal hyperplasia contribute to restenosis: a volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:720–724.[Abstract]
9. Prati F, Di Mario C, Gil R, von Birgelen C, Camenzind E, Montauban van Swijndregt WJ, de Feyter PJ, Serruys PW, Roelandt JR. Usefulness of on-line three-dimensional reconstruction of intracoronary ultrasound for guidance of stent deployment. Am J Cardiol. 1996;77:455–461.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Kastrati A, Schomig A, Elezi S, Schuhlen H, Dirschinger J, Hadamitzky M, Wehinger A, Hausleiter J, Walter H, Neumann FJ. Predictive factors of restenosis after coronary stent placement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:1428–1436.[Abstract]
11. von Birgelen C, Mintz GS, Nicosia A, Foley DP, van der Giessen WJ, Bruining N, Airiian SG, Roelandt JR, de Feyter PJ, Serruys PW. Electrocardiogram-gated intravascular ultrasound image acquisition after coronary stent deployment facilitates on-line three-dimensional reconstruction and automated lumen quantification. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:436–443.[Abstract]
12.
Stone GW, Hodgson JM, St Goar FG, Frey A, Mudra H,
Sheehan H, Linnemeier TJ. Improved procedural results of
coronary angioplasty with intravascular ultrasound-guided
balloon sizing: the CLOUT Pilot Trial: Clinical Outcomes With
Ultrasound Trial (CLOUT) Investigators. Circulation. 1997;95:2044–2052.
13.
Savage MP, Fischman DL, Rake R, Leon MB, Schatz RA,
Penn I, Nobuyoshi M, Moses J, Hirshfeld J, Heuser R, Baim D, Cleman M,
Brinker J, Gebhardt S, Goldberg S. Efficacy of coronary
stenting versus balloon angioplasty in small coronary arteries:
Stent Restenosis Study (STRESS) Investigators. J Am
Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:307–311.
14.
de Jaegere P, Mudra H, Figulla H, Almagor Y, Doucet S,
Penn I, Colombo A, Hamm C, Bartorelli A, Rothman M, Nobuyoshi M,
Yamaguchi T, Voudris V, DiMario C, Makovski S, Hausmann D, Rowe S,
Rabinovich S, Sunamura M, van Es GA. Intravascular ultrasound-guided
optimized stent deployment: immediate and 6 months clinical and
angiographic results from the Multicenter Ultrasound Stenting in
Coronaries Study (MUSIC study). Eur Heart J. 1998;19:1214–1223.
15. Gorge G, Haude M, Ge J, Voegele E, Gerber T, Rupprecht HJ, Meyer J, Erbel R. Intravascular ultrasound after low and high inflation pressure coronary artery stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:725–730.[Abstract]
16. von Birgelen C, Kutryk MJ, Gil R, Ozaki Y, Di Mario C, Roelandt JR, de Feyter PJ, Serruys PW. Quantification of the minimal luminal cross-sectional area after coronary stenting by two- and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound versus edge detection and videodensitometry. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78:520–525.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. von Birgelen C, Gil R, Ruygrok P, Prati F, Di Mario C, van der Giessen WJ, de Feyter PJ, Serruys PW. Optimized expansion of the Wallstent compared with the Palmaz-Schatz stent: on-line observations with two- and three-dimensional intracoronary ultrasound after angiographic guidance. Am Heart J. 1996;131:1067–1075.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18.
Albiero R, Rau T, Schluter M, Di Mario C, Reimers B,
Mathey DG, Tobis JM, Schofer J, Colombo A. Comparison of immediate and
intermediate-term results of intravascular ultrasound versus
angiography-guided Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation in matched lesions.
Circulation. 1997;96:2997–3005.
19. Kuntz RE, Gibson CM, Nobuyoshi M, Baim DS. Generalized model of restenosis after conventional balloon angioplasty, stenting and directional atherectomy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;21:15–25.[Abstract]
20.
Hoffmann R, Mintz GS, Mehran R, Pichard AD, Kent KM,
Satler LF, Popma JJ, Wu H, Leon MB. Intravascular ultrasound predictors
of angiographic restenosis in lesions treated with
Palmaz-Schatz stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:43–49.
21.
Bauters C, Hubert E, Prat A, Bougrimi K, Van Belle E,
McFadden EP, Amouyel P, Lablanche JM, Bertrand M. Predictors of
restenosis after coronary stent implantation.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:1291–1298.
22. Serruys PW, van der Giessen WG, and the Investigators for the WEST-II Study. Clinical and angiographic results with the Multi-Link stent implanted under intravascular ultrasound guidance (West-2 Study). J Invas Cardiol. 1998;10(suppl B):20b–27b.
23. Haase J, Escaned J, van Swijndregt EM, Ozaki Y, Gronenschild E, Slager CJ, Serruys PW. Experimental validation of geometric and densitometric coronary measurements on the new generation Cardiovascular Angiography Analysis System (CAAS II). Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993;30:104–114.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24.
Bermejo J, Botas J, Garcia E, Elizaga J, Osende J,
Soriano J, Abeytua M, Delcan JL. Mechanisms of residual lumen
stenosis after high-pressure stent implantation: a quantitative
coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound study.
Circulation. 1998;98:112–118.
25.
Hoffmann R, Mintz GS, Dussaillant GR, Popma JJ, Pichard
AD, Satler LF, Kent KM, Griffin J, Leon MB. Patterns and mechanisms of
in-stent restenosis: a serial intravascular ultrasound study.
Circulation. 1996;94:1247–1254.
26.
Kasaoka S, Tobis JM, Akiyama T, Reimers B, Di Mario C,
Wong ND, Colombo A. Angiographic and intravascular ultrasound
predictors of in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 1998;32:1630–1635.
27.
Elezi S, Kastrati A, Neumann FJ, Hadamitzky M,
Dirschinger J, Schomig A. Vessel size and long-term outcome after
coronary stent placement. Circulation. 1998;98:1875–1880.
28.
Strauss BH, Serruys PW, de Scheerder IK, Tijssen JG,
Bertrand ME, Puel J, Meier B, Kaufmann U, Stauffer JC, Rickards AF,
Sigwart U. Relative risk analysis of angiographic predictors of
restenosis within the coronary Wallstent.
Circulation. 1991;84:1636–1643.
29.
Foley DP, Melkert R, Serruys PW. Influence of
coronary vessel size on renarrowing process and late
angiographic outcome after successful balloon angioplasty.
Circulation. 1994;90:1239–1251.
30.
Topol EJ, Serruys PW. Frontiers in interventional
cardiology. Circulation. 1998;98:1802–1820.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  Effect of Length and Diameter of Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents on Late Outcomes Circ Cardiovasc Intervent, February 1, 2009; 2(1): 35 - 42.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Saia, A. Marzocchi, and A. Branzi Review: The safety of drug-eluting stents Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease, February 1, 2008; 2(1): 43 - 52. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Romagnoli, G. M. Sangiorgi, J. Cosgrave, E. Guillet, and A. Colombo Drug-eluting stenting the case for post-dilation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., February 1, 2008; 1(1): 22 - 31. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. M. Wilson and J. T. Willerson Myocardial Revascularization with Percutaneous Devices Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 573 - 598. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M.-K. Hong, G. S. Mintz, C. W. Lee, D.-W. Park, B.-R. Choi, K.-H. Park, Y.-H. Kim, S.-S. Cheong, J.-K. Song, J.-J. Kim, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors of angiographic restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation Eur. Heart J., June 1, 2006; 27(11): 1305 - 1310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Pugliese, F. Cademartiri, C. van Mieghem, W. B. Meijboom, P. Malagutti, N. R. A. Mollet, C. Martinoli, P. J. de Feyter, and G. P. Krestin Multidetector CT for visualization of coronary stents. RadioGraphics, May 1, 2006; 26(3): 887 - 904. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Wijns, S. Verheye, G. Manoharan, G. S. Werner, E. Grube, B. De Bruyne, J. Koolen, C. W. Hamm, A. Medina, J. W. Bech, et al. Angiographic, intravascular ultrasound, and fractional flow reserve evaluation of direct stenting vs. conventional stenting using BeStent2 in a multicentre randomized trial Eur. Heart J., September 2, 2005; 26(18): 1852 - 1859. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. A. Costa, G. S. Mintz, S. G. Carlier, A. J. Lansky, I. Moussa, K. Fujii, H. Takebayashi, T. Yasuda, J. R. Costa Jr, Y. Tsuchiya, et al. Bifurcation Coronary Lesions Treated With the "Crush" Technique: An Intravascular Ultrasound Analysis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 16, 2005; 46(4): 599 - 605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Sonoda, Y. Morino, J. Ako, M. Terashima, A. H. M. Hassan, H. N. Bonneau, M. B. Leon, J. W. Moses, P. G. Yock, Y. Honda, et al. Impact of final stent dimensions on long-term results following sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: Serial intravascular ultrasound analysis from the sirius trial J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 2, 2004; 43(11): 1959 - 1963. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Orford, A. Lerman, and D. R. Holmes Routine intravascular ultrasound guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention: A critical reappraisal J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 21, 2004; 43(8): 1335 - 1342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. A. Lemos, A. Hoye, D. Goedhart, C. A. Arampatzis, F. Saia, W. J. van der Giessen, E. McFadden, G. Sianos, P. C. Smits, S. H. Hofma, et al. Clinical, Angiographic, and Procedural Predictors of Angiographic Restenosis After Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in Complex Patients: An Evaluation From the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) Study Circulation, March 23, 2004; 109(11): 1366 - 1370. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. E. Ajani, R. Waksman, E. Cheneau, D.-H. Cha, S. McGlynn, M. Castagna, R. C. Chan, L. F. Satler, K. M. Kent, A. D. Pichard, et al. The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with In-Stentrestenosis who failed intracoronary radiation therapy J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 19, 2003; 41(4): 551 - 556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Schiele, N. Meneveau, M. Gilard, J. Boschat, P. Commeau, L. P. Ming, P. Sewoke, M.-F. Seronde, M. Mercier, S. Gupta, et al. Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Balloon Angioplasty Compared With Stent: Immediate and 6-Month Results of the Multicenter, Randomized Balloon Equivalent to Stent Study (BEST) Circulation, February 4, 2003; 107(4): 545 - 551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. V. Oemrawsingh, G. S. Mintz, M. J. Schalij, A. H. Zwinderman, J. W. Jukema, and E. E.v.d. Wall Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Improves Angiographic and Clinical Outcome of Stent Implantation for Long Coronary Artery Stenoses: Final Results of a Randomized Comparison With Angiographic Guidance (TULIP Study) Circulation, January 7, 2003; 107(1): 62 - 67. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J Gunn, N Arnold, K H Chan, L Shepherd, D C Cumberland, and D C Crossman Coronary artery stretch versus deep injury in the development of in-stent neointima Heart, October 1, 2002; 88(4): 401 - 405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.o. Hausleiter, A. Kastrati, J. Mehilli, H. Schuhlen, J.u. Pache, F. Dotzer, J. Dirschinger, and A. Schomig Predictive factors for early cardiac events and angiographic restenosis after coronary stent placement in small coronary arteries J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 4, 2002; 40(5): 882 - 889. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Farb, D. K. Weber, F. D. Kolodgie, A. P. Burke, and R. Virmani Morphological Predictors of Restenosis After Coronary Stenting in Humans Circulation, June 25, 2002; 105(25): 2974 - 2980. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Takano, L. A. Yeatman, J. R. Higgins, J. W. Currier, E. Ascencio, K. A. Kopelson, and J. M. Tobis Optimizing stent expansion with new stent delivery systems J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 15, 2001; 38(6): 1622 - 1627. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. N. Ruygrok, M. W.I. Webster, V. de Valk, G.-A. van Es, J. A. Ormiston, M.-A. M. Morel, and P. W. Serruys Clinical and Angiographic Factors Associated With Asymptomatic Restenosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Circulation, November 6, 2001; 104(19): 2289 - 2294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Hoffmann, P. Haager, G.S. Mintz, G. Kerckhoff, R. Schwarz, A. Franke, J. Vom Dahl, and P. Hanrath The impact of high pressure vs low pressure stent implantation on intimal hyperplasia and follow-up lumen dimensions; results of a randomized trial Eur. Heart J., November 1, 2001; 22(21): 2015 - 2024. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Colombo, J. De Gregorio, I. Moussa, Y. Kobayashi, E. Karvouni, C. Di Mario, R. Albiero, L. Finci, and J. Moses Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with provisional spot stenting for treatment of long coronary lesions J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 1, 2001; 38(5): 1427 - 1433. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.W. Serruys, D.P. Foley, M. Pieper, J.A. Kleijne, and P.J. de Feyter on behalf of the TRAPIST investigators The TRAPIST Study. A multicentre randomized placebo controlled clinical trial of trapidil for prevention of restenosis after coronary stenting, measured by 3-D intravascular ultrasound Eur. Heart J., October 2, 2001; 22(20): 1938 - 1947. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Mercado, E. Boersma, W. Wijns, B. J. Gersh, C. A. Morillo, V. de Valk, G.-A. van Es, D. E. Grobbee, and P. W. Serruys Clinical and quantitative coronary angiographic predictors of coronary restenosis: A comparative analysis from the balloon-to-stent era J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 1, 2001; 38(3): 645 - 652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. Fitzgerald, A. Oshima, M. Hayase, J. A. Metz, S. R. Bailey, D. S. Baim, M. W. Cleman, E. Deutsch, D. J. Diver, M. B. Leon, et al. Final Results of the Can Routine Ultrasound Influence Stent Expansion (CRUISE) Study Circulation, August 1, 2000; 102(5): 523 - 530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||