Key result
Suboptimal stent expansion with a minimal stent area < 5.0 mm2 was independently associated with an increased risk of device-oriented clinical endpoints (HR 3.90) compared to optimal expansion.
Why the study?
The impact of various post-stent OCT expansion and apposition indices on clinical outcomes and the criteria for OCT-defined optimal stent implantation remained to be determined.
Do specific OCT-defined stent expansion criteria predict device-oriented clinical endpoints in patients undergoing PCI with new-generation DES?
Observational (n=1,071)
Yes
Do specific OCT-defined stent expansion criteria predict device-oriented clinical endpoints in patients undergoing PCI with new-generation DES?
Hazard Ratio: 3.9 (95% CI 1.99–7.65)
Absolute Event Rate: 7.5% vs 2.7%
p-value: p=<0.001
Suboptimal stent expansion (MSA < 5.0 mm2 or MSA/distal reference lumen area < 90%) and excessive volumetric stent expansion (≥ 65.0%) are independently associated with worse device-oriented clinical outcomes after OCT-guided PCI.
MSA <5.0 mm² and relative expansion criteria linked to higher DoCE; leaves open optimal OCT thresholds pending randomized validation.
Regarding stent expansion indices, previous optical coherence tomography (OCT) studies have shown minimal stent area (MSA) to be most predictive of adverse events. We sought to evaluate the impact of various stent expansion and apposition indices by post-stent OCT on clinical outcomes and find OCT-defined optimal stent implantation criteria. A total of 1071 patients with 1123 native coronary artery lesions treated with new-generation drug-eluting stents with OCT guidance and final post-stent OCT analysis were included. Several stent expansion indices (MSA, MSA/average reference lumen area, MSA/distal reference lumen area, mean stent expansion, and stent expansion by linear model [stent volume/adaptive reference lumen volume]) were evaluated for their association with device-oriented clinical endpoints (DoCE) including cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI) or stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization. MSA was negatively correlated with the risk of DoCE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80 [0.68‒0.94]). However, stent expansion by linear model representing the overall volumetric stent expansion was associated with greater risk of DoCE (HR 1.02 [1.00‒1.04]). As categorical criteria, MSA < 5.0 mm2 (HR 3.90 [1.99‒7.65]), MSA/distal reference lumen area < 90% (HR 2.16 [1.12‒4.19]), and stent expansion by linear model ≥ 65.0% (HR 1.95 [1.03‒3.89]) were independently associated with DoCE. This OCT study highlights the importance of sufficient stent expansion to achieve adequate, absolute, and relative MSA criteria for improving clinical outcome. It also emphasises that overall volumetric excessive stent expansion may have detrimental effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=1,071). Minimal stent area (MSA) < 5.0 mm2 vs. MSA ≥ 5.0 mm2 was evaluated on Device-oriented clinical endpoints (DoCE) including cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization (HR 3.90, 95% CI 1.99-7.65, p=<0.001). Suboptimal stent expansion with a minimal stent area < 5.0 mm2 was independently associated with an increased risk of device-oriented clinical endpoints (HR 3.90) compared to optimal expansion.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: