Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical impact of self-expandable stent diameter after femoropopliteal stenting

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The optimal diameter of a self-expandable stent for femoropopliteal (FP) artery disease remains unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of stent diameter on the clinical outcome after FP stenting and to identify optimal stent diameter of self-expandable stent implantation. This study was a prospective observational study. Eighty patients who underwent successful self-expandable stent implantation for FP disease were enrolled in this study. A commercially available self-expandable stent was used. The operator determined the type, diameter and length of the stent based on a visual estimate in angiography. A peak systolic velocity ratio >2.0 was defined as restenosis. Primary patency was defined as treated vessel without restenosis and repeat revascularization. Secondary patency was defined as target vessel which subsequently become totally occluded and is reopened by repeat revascularization. As a result, restenosis was found in 34 patients (42.5%) during the follow-up of 24 months. In-stent restenosis was independently predicted by stent fracture [hazard ratio (HR) 2.6, p = 0.01], chronic total occlusion (HR 2.4, p = 0.02) and stent diameter ×10/vessel diameter (S/V) ratio (HR 1.7, p = 0.04). Using receiver-operator characteristic analysis, S/V ratio >1.30 best separated patients with and without in-stent restenosis. Primary and secondary patency was significantly lower in patients with S/V ratio >1.30 (85 vs. 44%, p = 0.002 and 90 vs. 65%, p = 0.009, respectively). In conclusion, an S/V ratio was an independent predictor of in-stent restenosis after FP stenting, and it was also associated with the clinical outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gray BH, Sullivan TM, Childs MB, Young JR, Olin JW. High incidence of restenosis/reocclusion of stents in the percutaneous treatment of long-segment superficial femoral artery disease after suboptimal angioplasty. J Vasc Surg. 1997;25:74–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dormandy JA, Rutherford B. Management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). J Vasc Surg. 2000;31:S1–296.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Antusevas A, Aleksynas N, Kaupas RS, Inciura D, Kinduris S. Comparison of results of subintimal angioplasty and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in superficial femoral artery occlusions. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;36:101–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Minar E, Pokrajac B, Maca T, Ahmadi R, Fellner C, Mittlböck M, et al. Endovascular brachytherapy for prophylaxis of restenosis after femoropopliteal angioplasty: results of a prospective randomized study. Circulation. 2000;102:2694–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Grimm J, Muller-Hulsbeck S, Jahnke T, Hilbert C, Brossmann J, Heller M. Randomized study to compare PTA alone versus PTA with Palmaz stent placement for femoropopliteal lesions. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12:935–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cejna M, Thurnher S, Illiasch H, Horvath W, Waldenberger P, Hornik K, et al. PTA versus Palmaz stent in femoropopliteal artery obstructions: a multicenter prospective randomized study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12:23–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vroegindeweij D, Vos LD, Tielbeek AV, Buth J, van de Bosch HC. Balloon angioplasty combined with primary stenting versus balloon angioplasty alone in femoropopliteal obstructions: a comparative randomized study. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 1997;20:420–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Becquemin JP, Favre JP, Marzelle J, Nemoz C, Corsin C, Leizorovicz A. Systematic versus selective stent placement after superficial femoral artery balloon angioplasty: a multicenter prospective randomized study. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:487–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gordon IL, Conroy RM, Arefi M, Tobis JM, Stemmer EA, Wilson SE. Three-year outcome of endovascular treatment of superficial femoral artery occlusion. Arch Surg. 2001;136:221–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zdanowski Z, Albrechtsson U, Lundin A, Jonung T, Ribbe E, Thorne J, et al. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stenting for femoropopliteal occlusions? A randomized controlled study. Int Angiol. 1999;18:251–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferreira M, Lanziotti L, Monteiro M, Abuhadba G, Capotorto LF, Nolte L, et al. Superficial femoral artery recanalization with self-expanding nitinol stents: long-term follow-up results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007;34:702–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bergeron P, Pinot JJ, Poyen V, Benichou H, Khanoyan P, Rudondy P, et al. Long-term results with the Palmaz stent in the superficial femoral artery. J Endovasc Surg. 1995;2:161–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grenacher L, Saam T, Geier A, Muller-Hulsbeck S, Cejna M, Kauffmann GW, et al. PTA versus Palmaz stent placement in femoropopliteal artery stenoses: results of a multicenter prospective randomized study (REFSA). Rofo. 2004;176:1302–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rutherford RB, Becker GJ. Standards for evaluating and reporting the results of surgical and percutaneous therapy for peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1991;2:169–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rocha-Singh KJ, Jaff MR, Crabtree TR, Bloch DA, Ansel G, VIVA Physicians, Inc. Performance goals and endpoint assessments for clinical trials of femoropopliteal bare nitinol stents in patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;69:920–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rogers C, Tseng DY, Squire JC, Edelman ER. Balloon-artery interactions during stent placement: a finite element analysis approach to pressure, compliance, and stent design as contributors to vascular injury. Circ Res. 1999;84:378–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Berry JL, Manoach E, Mekkaoui C, Rolland PH, Moore JE Jr, Rachev A. Hemodynamics and wall mechanics of a compliance matching stent: in vitro and in vivo analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13:97–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sabeti S, Schillinger M, Amighi J, Sherif C, Mlekusch W, Ahmadi R, et al. Primary patency of femoropopliteal arteries treated with nitinol versus stainless steel self-expanding stents: propensity score-adjusted analysis. Radiology. 2004;232:516–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schillinger M, Sabeti S, Loewe C, Dick P, Amighi J, Mlekusch W, et al. Balloon angioplasty versus implantation of nitinol stents in the superficial femoral artery. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1879–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Iida O, Nanto S, Uematsu M, Morozumi T, Kotani J, Awata M, et al. Effect of exercise on frequency of stent fracture in the superficial femoral artery. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:272–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Scheinert D, Scheinert S, Sax J, Piorkowski C, Bräunlich S, Ulrich M, et al. Prevalence and clinical impact of stent fractures after femoropopliteal stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:312–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Serruys PW, de Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, Macaya C, Rutsch W, Heyndrickx G, for The Benestent Study Group, et al. A comparison of balloon expandable stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. N Eng J Med. 1994;331:489–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, Schatz RA, Savage MP, Penn I, for The Stent Restenosis Study Investigators, et al. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by institutional support only.

Conflicts of interest

None of the authors have any real or perceived conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, Kokura Memorial Hospital, 1-1 Kifune-machi, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-8555, Japan

    Yoshimitsu Soga, Hiroyoshi Yokoi, Tomoko Urakawa, Masashi Iwabuchi & Masakiyo Nobuyoshi

Authors
  1. Yoshimitsu Soga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiroyoshi Yokoi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tomoko Urakawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masashi Iwabuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Masakiyo Nobuyoshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoshimitsu Soga.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Soga, Y., Yokoi, H., Urakawa, T. et al. Clinical impact of self-expandable stent diameter after femoropopliteal stenting. Cardiovasc Interv and Ther 26, 38–44 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-010-0032-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-010-0032-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation