(Circulation. 1999;100:918-923.)
© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
Influence of Balloon Pressure During Stent Placement in Native Coronary Arteries on Early and Late Angiographic and Clinical Outcome
A Randomized Evaluation of High-Pressure Inflation
From the 1. Medizinische Klinik rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität (J.D., H.S., J.P., E.A.); the Deutsches Herzzentrum (A.K., F.J.N., S.E., J.M., R.B., A.S.); and the 1. Medizinische Klinik, Klinikum Großhadern der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (P.B., G.S.), Munich, Germany.
Correspondence to Dr Josef Dirschinger, 1. Medizinische Klinik rechts der Isar der TU, Ismaningerstraße 22, 81675 München, Germany.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background—High-pressure dilatation is considered a better stent placement strategy, but this has not yet been proved by appropriately designed studies. The objective of this randomized trial was to assess the role of high-pressure dilatation in the early and late outcome of patients undergoing coronary stent placement.
Methods and Results—Consecutive patients with coronary
stent placement were randomly assigned to high- (15 to 20 atm, 468
patients) or low- (8 to 13 atm, 466 patients) balloon-pressure
dilatation. The primary end point of the study was the event-free
survival at 1 year. Secondary end points were the incidence of stent
thrombosis at 30 days and angiographic restenosis (
50%
diameter stenosis) at 6 months. The incidence of stent
thrombosis was 1.7% in the high-pressure and 1.9% in the low-pressure
group (relative risk 0.89; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.56). During the first 30
days, although there was no significant difference in the incidence of
Q-wave myocardial infarction, the incidence of non–Q-wave infarction
was 6.4% in the high-pressure and 3.4% in the low-pressure group
(relative risk 1.87; 95% CI 1.02 to 3.42). The restenosis rate
was 30.4% in the high-pressure and 31.4% in the low-pressure group
(relative risk 0.97; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.26). Event-free survival at 1
year was not significantly different between the groups, with 78.8% in
high-pressure patients and 75.5% in patients assigned to low-pressure
dilatation (hazard ratio 0.85; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11).
Conclusions—The systematic use of high-balloon-pressure inflation (15 to 20 atm) during coronary stent placement is not associated with any significant influence on the 1-year outcome of patients undergoing this intervention.
Key Words: stents • balloon • thrombosis • restenosis • trials
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The enthusiasm engendered by the initial randomized trials demonstrating the advantages of coronary stenting over conventional percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty (PTCA) was overshadowed by the increase in bleeding complications associated with the anticoagulation therapy imposed by the thrombogenic nature of the stent.1 2 Improvement in the rheology of the stented coronary lumen3 was a first logical attempt to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis and the need for aggressive anticoagulation. Colombo and his team4 5 were the first to propose high-pressure dilatation as a strategy that ensures complete stent apposition, better flow characteristics, and decreased risk of thrombosis and obviates the anticoagulation. This strategy was rapidly embraced by the large community of interventional cardiologists and became an integral part of recent recommendations on coronary stenting.6 The switch to the high-pressure strategy, however, has coincided with the introduction of ticlopidine plus aspirin as a poststenting therapy. The demonstration of the pivotal role of platelets in stent thrombosis7 8 and of the superiority of the combined antiplatelet therapy over anticoagulation for its prevention9 10 necessitates specifically designed studies to clarify the independent role of high-pressure dilatation in the reduction of the risk for stent thrombosis. High-pressure dilatation may also exert a positive influence on restenosis as a result of the better acute lumen achieved11 and improvement in flow characteristics.12
The objective of this randomized trial was to assess the role of high-pressure dilatation in the early and late outcome of patients undergoing coronary stent placement.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Patients
Patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease treated with stenting were eligible for this study. Exclusion criteria were acute 3myocardial infarction (within 48 hours before intervention), target lesion in a venous bypass graft, prior randomization, and unwillingness or inability to provide written informed consent for participation in the trial. The randomization sequence was specified before the study began. All patients were randomly assigned to a balloon-pressure strategy by means of sealed envelope before the intervention. Patients gave informed consent for a routine control angiography at 6 months. The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committees at each participating center.
Stent Placement and Poststenting Treatment
During the intervention, patients received
intravenous heparin and aspirin. Patients considered at
higher risk for stent thrombosis (large residual dissections, thrombus
at the stent site) received abciximab. Heparin infusion was continued
for 12 hours after the intervention. All patients received 250 mg
ticlopidine started immediately after the intervention and continued
twice daily for 4 weeks as well as 100 mg aspirin taken twice daily
indefinitely.
The stents implanted were those in use in our institutions at the time
at which the study was performed. They were all composed of stainless
steel material and were multicellular in design. We used the Inflow
stent (Inflow Dynamics), Multi-Link stent (Guidant, Advanced
Cardiovascular Systems), NIR stent (Scimed, Boston
Scientific), Palmaz-Schatz stent (Johnson & Johnson Interventional
Systems), and Pura-A stent (Devon Medical). Lesion predilatation
with conventional angioplasty balloon catheters was performed before
the stent placement. Except for the Multi-Link type, all stents were
firmly hand-crimped on conventional balloon catheters before delivery.
For Multi-Link stents, the delivery system provided by the manufacturer
was used. The balloon size for stent deployment was chosen on the basis
of the estimated vessel size in a nondiseased portion. High pressure
was defined as a pressure in the range of 15 to 20 atm on the basis of
the values used by Colombo et al4 5 and achieved with
noncompliant or minimally compliant balloons. Low pressure was defined
as a pressure in the range of 8 to 13 atm to allow a safe inflation
with conventional angioplasty balloons below the rated burst pressure.
The procedural results were assessed by angiography only; no
intravascular ultrasound studies were performed. The procedure was
considered successful when stent placement was associated with a
residual stenosis of <30% and Thrombolysis in
Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 2.
Angiographic Evaluation
Lesion complexity and calcifications were defined according to
Ellis et al.13 Left ventricular function was
assessed qualitatively on the basis of biplane angiograms with a
7-segment division; the diagnosis of reduced left
ventricular function required the presence of hypokinesia
in 2 segments. Offline quantitative angiographic analysis was
performed by operators not involved in the procedure and unaware of the
pressure strategy to which the patient was assigned. Digital angiograms
were analyzed with the automated edge detection system CMS
(Medis Medical Imaging Systems). Matched views were selected for
angiograms recorded before and immediately after the intervention
and at follow-up. The parameters obtained were minimal
lumen diameter (MLD), reference diameter, diameter stenosis,
and diameter of the maximally inflated balloon during stent placement.
Acute elastic recoil was measured as the difference between balloon
diameter and MLD at the end of the procedure. Acute lumen gain was the
difference between MLD at the end of the intervention and MLD before
balloon dilatation. Late lumen loss was calculated as the difference in
MLD between immediately after the procedure and follow-up.
Definitions and End Points of the Study
The primary end point of the study was event-free survival at 1
year after the procedure. Death, myocardial infarction, and target
vessel revascularization (PTCA or
aortocoronary bypass surgery) were considered adverse events.
The diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction was established in the
presence of a clinical episode of prolonged chest pain and a rise in
serum creatine kinase (CK) levels to at least twice the upper normal
limit or the appearance of 1 new pathological Q waves on the
ECG.14 CK was determined before and immediately after the
procedure, every 8 hours for the first 24 hours after stenting, and
then daily until discharge. Target vessel
revascularization was performed in the presence of
angiographic restenosis and symptoms or signs of
ischemia. Cardiac events were monitored throughout the
follow-up period. The assessment was made on the basis of the
information provided by hospital readmission records, referring
physician, or phone interview with the patient. For all those patients
who showed cardiac symptoms during the interview, at least a clinical
and ECG checkup was performed at the outpatient clinic or by the
referring physician.
Secondary end points of the study were based on angiographic outcomes
after stenting. First, the incidence of stent thrombosis was assessed
during the early 30-day period. The diagnosis was made on the basis of
a TIMI flow grade of 0 or 1 at angiography. Second, the incidence of
restenosis (defined as a diameter stenosis of 50%)
was assessed from the 6-month follow-up angiography.
Statistical Analysis
The number of patients included in the study was based on the
sample size estimation for our primary end point, the occurrence of any
major adverse event during the first year after the procedure. We
assumed a 1-year event rate of 20% for patients with low-pressure
stenting and 13% for those with high-pressure dilatation. The study
was designed to have an 80% power for detecting a significant
difference between these 2 strategies with an 
level of 0.05, and a
sample size of 466 patients for each group was estimated.
All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis.
Results are expressed as mean±SD or as proportions (%). The
differences between groups were assessed by 
2
test for categorical data and t test for continuous data.
The relative risk for an adverse event associated with high-pressure
inflation was also calculated. Survival analysis was made by
the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences in survival parameters
were assessed for significance by means of the log-rank test, and the
hazard ratio associated with high-pressure inflation was calculated by
Cox regression analysis. Statistical significance was accepted
for all values of P<0.05.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Of the 934 patients enrolled in the study, 468 were assigned to high-pressure and 466 to low-pressure dilatation. Table 1
shows the baseline clinical
characteristics of the patients, which were comparable between the
groups. Table 2 lists the baseline
angiographic characteristics of the patients. Diameter stenosis
was higher in patients of the high-pressure group, whereas all other
data were not significantly different between the groups. Table 3 shows the procedural data. On average,
there was a difference of 
6 atm in the actual balloon pressure used,
and the distribution of this parameter in either group is
displayed in Figure 1. In 45 patients of
the low-pressure group (14 with calcified lesions), the operator
considered it more appropriate to use a pressure above the range
specified in the study protocol because of suboptimal angiographic
results. In 24 of these 45 patients (53%), the balloon pressure used
was only 1 atm above the upper limit of 13 atm, ie, intermediate
between low and high pressure. In 48 patients of the high-pressure
group, the operator used a pressure below the range specified in the
study protocol because of increased risk or presence of a progressive
dissection or when it was impossible or hazardous to reach the stented
lesion with an additional noncompliant balloon. In 20 of these 48
patients (42%), the balloon pressure used was only 1 atm below the
lower limit of 15 atm, ie, intermediate between low and high pressure.
Thus, in 6.0% of high-pressure patients, we used a pressure within the
low-pressure range and in 4.5% of low-pressure patients, a pressure
within the high-pressure range.
|
|
|
|
Early 30-Day Outcome
There were no cases of coronary artery perforation in
either group. Table 4 indicates the
number of patients with untoward events within the first 30 days after
the procedure and the respective relative risk associated with
high-pressure inflation. During this period, there was a higher
incidence of non–Q-wave myocardial infarction (CK or CK-MB elevation
>3 times normal) in the group of high balloon pressure, 6.4%, versus
3.4% in the low-pressure group; relative risk 1.87; 95% CI 1.02 to
3.42. Figure 2 shows the incidence of
myocardial infarction defined according to the criteria applied in the
EPISTENT trial.8
|
|
Angiographic Follow-Up and 1-Year Clinical Outcome
Patients without adverse events within the first 30 days after the
procedure were considered eligible for a 6-month angiographic control.
It was carried out in 372 (83.0%) of the eligible patients in the
high-pressure group and 370 (82.2%) of the eligible patients in the
low-pressure group.
The results of the quantitative assessment of the follow-up angiogram
are presented in Table 5. The
incidence of restenosis was 30.4% in the high-pressure group
and 31.4% in the low-pressure group, and the relative risk associated
with high-pressure inflation was 0.97 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.26).
|
As shown in Table 6, our
primary end point, event-free survival, was not significantly different
between the 2 groups, with 78.8% in patients assigned to high-pressure
dilatation and 75.5% in patients assigned to low-pressure dilatation,
with a hazard ratio of 0.85 (0.65 to 1.11). Repeat PTCA was required in
77 patients (16.4%) of the high-pressure arm, compared with 78
patients (16.7%) in the low-pressure arm; relative risk of 0.98 (0.72
to 1.35). Primary end-point analysis performed in different
subgroups defined by the stent model used, the presence of complex or
calcified lesions, or lesions located in small vessels did not show any
significant influence of high-pressure dilatation (Table 7).
|
|
Table 8 shows the main findings in
subgroups defined by the random assignment and actual pressure used.
For both study groups, the results achieved in patients in whom a
pressure outside the assigned range was applied were not significantly
different from those achieved in patients in whom a pressure within the
limits specified by the protocol was used.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This randomized study compared 2 strategies of balloon dilatation pressure during stent placement in native coronary vessels of 934 patients with coronary artery disease. It showed that systematic use of high pressure is not associated with any appreciable reduction in the incidence of stent thrombosis and restenosis. Most importantly, the rate of adverse clinical events during the 1 year after the intervention was comparable for both treatment strategies.
High Balloon Pressure and Early Adverse Events
The overall incidence of stent thrombosis within the first 30 days
after the procedure was 1.8% in the present study. This is in the
range of stent thrombosis rate reported for patients treated with
combined antiplatelet agents after stenting.4 5 15 16
We could not show any significant difference in the incidence of this
complication between high- and low-pressure inflation, but we should
also take into account that this study was not sufficiently powered for
the analysis of the secondary end point of stent thrombosis.
Earlier observational studies reported a low incidence of stent
thrombosis with high-pressure inflation and dual antiplatelet
therapy with ticlopidine plus aspirin.5 16 More recently,
2 randomized trials demonstrated the independent preventive effect of
ticlopidine plus aspirin against stent thrombosis.9 10
This therapy was particularly beneficial in patients with high risk for
stent thrombosis.17
The rates of early clinical events such as death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, and reintervention were also comparable between the 2 groups with different pressure inflation strategies. Another important finding of this study is the higher incidence of CK elevation after stenting with high-pressure inflation, which may be of concern considering the most recent data about its clinical significance.18 Our results, however, should not be interpreted as contradicting a positive role conceived for optimal stent expansion. Bermejo et al19 recently demonstrated with intravascular ultrasound investigation that despite high-pressure deployment, lumen dimensions after stenting are only 57% of the maximum achievable because of inadequate balloon expansion and elastic recoil. These issues were not the focus of the present study, and it remains to be demonstrated which is the best strategy to achieve an optimal stent expansion.
High Balloon Pressure and Restenosis
Final lumen achieved after stenting is one of the most powerful
predictors of restenosis at follow-up.20
High-pressure inflation is expected to afford a better lumen at the end
of the intervention. In fact, a slight yet significant difference in
residual stenosis was verified in the present study in
favor of the high-pressure strategy. Conversely, the use of high
balloon pressure may engender concerns about a potential exacerbation
of the hyperplastic response from the injured vessel wall. The
present randomized trial demonstrated that restenosis after
coronary stent placement is not a function of the balloon
pressure strategy used. All angiographic and clinical indexes of
restenosis were comparable between the high- and low-pressure
arms. Conversely, our findings did not justify the concerns that this
approach may serve as a stimulus for excessive neointimal
hyperplasia after stenting.
Limitations of the Study
Studies that assess the role of various pressure inflation
strategies during coronary stent placement suffer from the lack
of a clear-cut definition of high pressure. The pressure used in the
high-pressure arm of the present study complies well with the
values applied by the team that proposed this strategy for the first
time4 5 and also corresponds to the recent recommendations
of the American College of Cardiology Expert Consensus
Document.6 Similarly, there is no clear definition of low
pressure. In their initial experience, Schatz et al used pressure
ranges of 6 to 10 atm21 or 9 to 12 atm.22 Our
average inflation pressure of 11.1 atm in the low-pressure group is
also comparable to that of 10±8 atm used in the BENESTENT
trial1 before the advent of high-pressure strategy.
Even with minimally compliant balloons, balloon size and consequently balloon-to-vessel ratio are not completely independent from the inflation pressure. If both pressure and balloon-to-vessel ratio vary concomitantly, it may be difficult to estimate the independent role of inflation pressure. The results presented here should not be extrapolated to procedures in which the combination of high-pressure inflation with compliant balloons may significantly increase the balloon-to-vessel ratio. Our primary goal was to keep a comparable balloon-to-vessel ratio between the 2 groups and to test the independent role of inflation pressure. Appropriately designed studies are required to evaluate which is the best balloon-to-vessel ratio to be used during coronary stent deployment to achieve an optimal result.
Another limitation of the study is that not all patients have been treated with an inflation pressure within the assigned range. However, the deviation from the predefined range was mostly minimal, and only 6.0% of the high-pressure patients and 4.5% of low-pressure patients crossed over to the opposite inflation pressure range. These data also indicate that a unique inflation pressure strategy may not be applied for all kinds of lesions.
Conclusions
The systematic use of high-pressure inflation during
coronary stent placement is not associated with any significant
influence on the 1-year outcome of patients undergoing this
intervention. Depending on lesion characteristics, the operator may
take advantage of a wider range of balloon inflation pressures that may
be used to achieve optimal results.
Received January 14, 1999; revision received May 24, 1999; accepted June 2, 1999.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. 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. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:489–495.
2.
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 RD, Colombo A, Brinker J, Moses J,
Shaknovich A, Hirshfeld 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.
N Engl J Med. 1994;331:496–501.
3.
Serruys PW, Di Mario C. Who was thrombogenic: the
stent or the doctor? Circulation. 1995;91:1891–1893.
4.
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.
5. Nakamura S, Hall P, Gaglione A, Tiecco F, Di Maggio M, Maiello L, Martini G, Colombo A. High pressure assisted coronary stent implantation accomplished without intravascular ultrasound guidance and subsequent anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:21–27.[Abstract]
6.
Holmes DR Jr, Hirshfeld J Jr, Faxon D, Vlietstra RE,
Jacobs A, King SB III. ACC Expert Consensus document on
coronary artery stents. Document of the American College of
Cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:1471–1482.
7. Neumann FJ, Gawaz M, Ott I, May A, Mössmer G, Schömig A. Prospective evaluation of hemostatic predictors of subacute stent thrombosis after coronary Palmaz-Schatz stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27:15–21.[Abstract]
8. The EPISTENT Investigators. Randomized placebo-controlled and balloon-angioplasty-controlled trial to assess safety of coronary stenting with use of platelet glycoprotein-IIb/IIIa blockade. Lancet. 1998;352:87–92.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9.
Schömig A, Neumann FJ, Kastrati A,
Schühlen H, Blasini R, Hadamitzky M, Walter H, Zitzmann-Roth E,
Richardt G, Alt E, Schmitt C, Ulm K. A randomized comparison of
antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after the placement of
coronary artery stents. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1084–1089.
10.
Leon MB, Baim DS, Popma JJ, Gordon PC, Cutlip DE, Ho
KKL, Giambartolomei A, Diver DJ, Lasorda DM, Williams DO, Pocock SJ,
Kuntz RE. A clinical trial comparing three antithrombotic-drug regimens
after coronary-artery stenting. N Engl J
Med. 1998;339:1665–1671.
11. 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]
12.
Liu MW, Roubin GS, King SB III. Restenosis
after coronary angioplasty: potential biologic determinants and
role of intimal hyperplasia. Circulation. 1989;79:1374–1387.
13.
Ellis SG, Vandormael MG, Cowley MJ, DiSciascio G,
Deligonul U, Topol EJ, Bulle TM. Coronary morphologic and
clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for
multivessel coronary disease: implications for patient
selection. Circulation. 1990;82:1193–1202.
14.
Joint International Society and Federation of
Cardiology/World Health Organization Task Force on
Standardization of Clinical Nomenclature. Nomenclature and criteria for
diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 1979;59:607–609.
15.
Karrillon GJ, Morice MC, Benveniste E, Bunouf P, Aubry
P, Cattan S, Chevalier B, Commeau P, Cribier A, Eiferman C, Grollier G,
Guerin Y, Henry M, Lefevre T, Livarek B, Louvard Y, Marco J, Makowski
S, Monassier JP, Pernes JM, Rioux P, Spaulding C, Zemour G.
Intracoronary stent implantation without ultrasound guidance
and with replacement of conventional anticoagulation by
antiplatelet therapy: 30 day clinical outcome of the French
Multicenter Registry. Circulation. 1996;94:1519–1527.
16.
Albiero R, Hall P, Itoh A, Blengino S, Nakamura S,
Martini G, Ferraro M, Colombo A. Results of a consecutive series of
patients receiving only antiplatelet therapy after optimized stent
implantation: comparison of aspirin alone versus combined ticlopidine
and aspirin therapy. Circulation. 1997;95:1145–1156.
17.
Schühlen H, Hadamitzky M, Walter H, Ulm K,
Schömig A. Major benefit from antiplatelet therapy for
patients at high risk for adverse cardiac events after coronary
Palmaz-Schatz stent placement: analysis of a prospective risk
stratification protocol in the ISAR trial. Circulation. 1997;95:2015–2021.
18.
Califf RM, Abdelmeguid AE, Kuntz RE, Popma JJ, Davidson
CJ, Cohen EA, Kleiman NS, Mahaffey KW, Topol EJ, Pepine CJ, Lipicky RJ,
Granger CB, Harrington RA, Tardiff BE, Crenshaw BS, Bauman RP,
Zuckerman BD, Chaitman BR, Bittl JA, Ohman EM. Myonecrosis after
revascularization procedures. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 1998;31:241–251.
19.
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.
20. Kastrati A, Schömig A, Elezi S, Schühlen H, Dirschinger J, Hadamitzky H, 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]
21.
Schatz RA, Baim DS, Leon M, Ellis SG, Goldberg S,
Hirshfeld JW, Cleman MW, Cabin HS, Walker C, Stagg J, Buchbinder M,
Teirstein PS, Topol EJ, Whitworth H, Sousa JE, Tio F, Almagor Y, Ponder
R, Penn IM, Leonard B, Levine SL, Fish RD, Palmaz JC. Clinical
experience with the Palmaz-Schatz coronary stent: initial
results of a multicenter study. Circulation. 1991;83:148–161.
22. Haude M, Erbel R, Straub U, Dietz U, Schatz R, Meyer J. Koronare Gefäßstützenimplantation bei Patienten mit symptomatischen Dissektionen nach Ballondilatation. Z Kardiol. 1990;79:843–849.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  I. Iakovou, G. S. Mintz, G. Dangas, A. Abizaid, R. Mehran, Y. Kobayashi, A. J. Lansky, E. D. Aymong, E. Nikolsky, G. W. Stone, et al. Increased CK-MB release is a "trade-off" for optimal stent implantation: an intravascular ultrasound study J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., December 3, 2003; 42(11): 1900 - 1905. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.u. Pache, A. Kastrati, J. Mehilli, H. Schuhlen, F. Dotzer, J.o. Hausleiter, M. Fleckenstein, F.-J. Neumann, U. Sattelberger, C. Schmitt, et al. Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: strut thickness effect on restenosis outcome (ISAR-STEREO-2) trial J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 16, 2003; 41(8): 1283 - 1288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. S. Kini, P. Lee, C. A. Mitre, M. E. Duffy, and S. K. Sharma Postprocedure chest pain after coronary stenting: implications on clinical restenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 1, 2003; 41(1): 33 - 38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Windecker and B. Meier All stents are not alike or is the difference in the eye of the observer only? Eur. Heart J., November 1, 2001; 22(21): 1973 - 1977. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F.-J. Neumann, A. Kastrati, T. Miethke, J. Mehilli, G. Pogatsa-Murray, W. Koch, M. Seyfarth, and A. Schomig Previous Cytomegalovirus Infection and Restenosis After Coronary Stent Placement Circulation, September 4, 2001; 104(10): 1135 - 1139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Kastrati, J. Mehilli, J. Dirschinger, F. Dotzer, H. Schuhlen, F.-J. Neumann, M. Fleckenstein, C. Pfafferott, M. Seyfarth, and A. Schomig Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results : Strut Thickness Effect on Restenosis Outcome (ISAR-STEREO) Trial Circulation, June 12, 2001; 103(23): 2816 - 2821. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. L. Goldberg, A. Loussararian, J. De Gregorio, C. Di Mario, R. Albiero, and A. Colombo Predictors of diffuse and aggressive intra-stent restenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 15, 2001; 37(4): 1019 - 1025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Hoffmann and G.S. Mintz Coronary in-stent restenosis--predictors, treatment and prevention Eur. Heart J., November 1, 2000; 21(21): 1739 - 1749. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. J. Cantor, E. D. Peterson, J. J. Popma, J. P. Zidar, M. H. Sketch Jr., J. E. Tcheng, and E. M. Ohman Provisional stenting strategies: systematic overview and implications for clinical decision-making J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 1, 2000; 36(4): 1142 - 1151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Kastrati, A. Schomig, J. Dirschinger, J. Mehilli, N. von Welser, J. Pache, H. Schuhlen, T. Schilling, C. Schmitt, and F.-J. Neumann Increased Risk of Restenosis After Placement of Gold-Coated Stents : Results of a Randomized Trial Comparing Gold-Coated With Uncoated Steel Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Circulation, May 30, 2000; 101(21): 2478 - 2483. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C Schulz, R A Herrmann, C Beilharz, J Pasquantonio, and E Alt Coronary stent symmetry and vascular injury determine experimental restenosis Heart, April 1, 2000; 83(4): 462 - 467. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||