Failure of a novel balloon-expandable gamma-emitting ((103)Pd) stent to prevent edge effects.

BACKGROUND: Balloon-expandable beta-particle-emitting ((32)P) stents inhibit within-stent neointimal hyperplasia but induce lumen narrowing beyond the stent margins, ie, the so-called "edge effects." METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively investigated the performance of novel stents impregnated with the gamma-emitting isotope (103)Pd, designed to reduce edge effects, in 24 rabbits. The stents had a length of 18 mm and were mounted on 20-mm-long delivery balloons for deployment. Angiograms were obtained immediately and 1 month after direct implantation of control and 1-, 2-, and 4-mCi (103)Pd stents into the iliac arteries without predilatation or postdilatation. Late lumen loss was measured with quantitative angiography. Neointimal hyperplasia and vascular remodeling were evaluated by histomorphometry. Late lumen loss was inhibited within (103)Pd stents (control 0.18 mm, 1 mCi 0.08 mm, 2 mCi 0.05 mm, and 4 mCi -0.03 mm, P<0.05 all activities versus control). Conversely, late lumen loss occurred at the edges of (103)Pd stents, correlating with areas of high balloon/artery ratios and vessel overstretch injury. Edge effects were primarily due to neointimal hyperplasia but were also caused by negative vessel remodeling at high stent activities. CONCLUSIONS: Edge effects after implantation of radioisotope stents can occur independently of the isotope chosen for stent impregnation.

Overestimation of stent delivery balloon diameters by manufacturers' compliance tables: a quantitative coronary analysis of Duet and NIR stent implantation.

Although manufacturers' compliance tables of stent delivery balloons indicate the diameter of the balloon at a given inflation pressure, it is unclear whether these data correlate with in vivo true intracoronary balloon diameters (TBDs). The TBDs of two new-generation balloon-expandable stent delivery systems (Duet and NIR) were measured by quantitative coronary analysis (QCA) in 100 consecutive patients. The manufacturers' stated balloon diameter (BD) of the stent delivery systems overestimated the TBD in 94% +/- 4% of patients receiving both Duet or NIR stent implantations. In only 6% of the patients, the TBD matched the manufacturers' stated balloon diameter. There was no underestimation of TBDs by both manufacturers' compliance tables. The Duet tables overestimated TBDs by 14% +/- 8% (range, 1%-36%), the NIR tables by 18% +/- 8% (range, 1%-41%), P < 0.05, Duet vs. NIR, respectively. When the manufacturers' data were corrected for the differences in reporting data from in vitro tests, i.e., balloon compliance data with or without the stent, the degree of overestimation of diameters was similar for Duet and NIR stent delivery balloons (14% +/- 8% vs. 13% +/- 7%, Duet vs. NIR; P = NS). Manufacturers' compliance tables of both the Duet and NIR stent delivery balloon systems significantly overestimate the true intracoronary balloon diameter. The manufacturers' of stent delivery balloons should clearly state on the box, if balloon compliance data were derived from in vitro bench testing, which phantoms were used for compliance analysis, and that the tables may overestimate the true intracoronary balloon diameter. The findings of the present study have important clinical implications with respect to performing coronary stent implantation with precision.