Why the study?
Does provisional stenting guided by imaging and physiology improve outcomes compared to routine stenting in small coronary arteries?
Does provisional stenting guided by imaging and physiology improve outcomes compared to routine stenting in small coronary arteries?
This review highlights that routine stenting in small coronary arteries has high restenosis rates, supporting a provisional stenting strategy guided by intracoronary imaging and physiology.
May support provisional stenting in small vessels; leaves open confirmation by randomized trials before practice change.
Based on the currently available data, the strategy of routine stent placement in unselected lesions located in small coronary arteries provides good immediate results but is still associated with a high incidence of in-stent restenosis. Randomized trials comparing elective stenting with balloon angioplasty have not provided the demonstration that routine stenting is the best strategy for percutaneous intervention in coronary arteries with a reference diameter smaller than 2.75-3.0 mm. This paper describes the rationale for provisional stenting in this clinical setting and reviews the role of quantitative coronary angiography, intracoronary ultrasound and intracoronary Doppler measurements in the identification of lesions that would benefit from adjunctive stent placement after balloon angioplasty and in guiding stent implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Airoldi et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: