Key result
Severe coronary calcification linked to ~2.5-fold higher TVR risk despite comparable stent expansion.
Why the study?
Coronary stent underexpansion increases the risks of in-stent restenosis, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite its clinical importance, there is no consensus on optimal treatment largely due to the absence of large prospective studies.
Does severe or mild coronary artery calcification compared to no calcification increase the risk of clinically driven target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention?
Cohort (n=709)
Investigators blinded to clinical outcomes for offline IVUS analysis; independent Clinical Events Committee adjudication
No
Does severe or mild coronary artery calcification compared to no calcification increase the risk of clinically driven target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention?
Hazard Ratio: 2.51 (95% CI 1.33–4.74)
Absolute Event Rate: 13.7% vs 6.2%
p-value: p=0.005
Under IVUS guidance with aggressive lesion preparation, severely calcified coronary lesions can achieve acute stent expansion comparable to non-calcified lesions, yet they remain independently associated with a 2.5-fold higher risk of clinically driven target vessel revascularization.
Severe calcification was associated with higher TVR risk despite comparable expansion; challenges underexpansion paradigm but leaves open optimal lesion preparation.
Coronary stent underexpansion is an important problem and limitation of percutaneous coronary intervention, adversely affecting both short- and long-term patient outcomes. Stent underexpansion occurs when a stent fails to expand adequately compared with the adjacent reference segment, resulting in inadequate luminal gain. Multiple studies suggest that stent underexpansion is associated with increased risks of in-stent restenosis, stent thrombosis, and myocardial infarction, resulting in recurrent symptoms, readmissions, repeat interventions, and increased mortality. Contributing factors for stent underexpansion include severe calcification, inadequate lesion preparation, suboptimal stent deployment, and preexisting in-stent restenosis. Calcific plaques, especially when present behind a previously implanted, underexpanded stent, pose a significant challenge for further stent optimization. These lesions are often resistant to high-pressure balloon dilatation and may require advanced techniques that carry increased risks of complications. Intravascular imaging modalities, such as intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography, have emerged as essential tools in diagnosing and managing stent underexpansion. These techniques provide a more detailed evaluation of the vessel and previously implanted stent, enabling the clinician to understand the exact mechanism of stent failure, and assess plaque burden and morphology, which ultimately helps guide appropriate treatment strategies. Despite the clinical importance of stent underexpansion, there is currently no consensus on its optimal treatment, largely because of the absence of large prospective studies in this area. This comprehensive review aims to summarize the existing evidence, clinical experience, and treatment strategies for coronary stent underexpansion, with the goal of providing practical guidance to clinicians to help optimize percutaneous coronary intervention and patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ng et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease undergoing IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=709). Severe coronary artery calcification (IVUS arc >180 degrees and length >5 mm) vs. No coronary artery calcification (no detectable calcium on IVUS) was evaluated on Clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.33-4.74, p=0.005). Severe coronary calcification independently increased the risk of target vessel revascularization compared to no calcification (aHR 2.51, 95% CI 1.33-4.74, P=0.005) despite comparable stent expansion.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: