title: A prospective evaluation of angiography-guided coronary stent implantation with high versus very high balloon inflation pressure.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  High inflation pressure (HP) after coronary stent deployment has become a standard approach because it has been associated with a decreased subacute stent thrombosis (SAT) rate. However, the impact of HP on long-term outcomes is still unclear. We compared the long-term results of a strategy of increasing HP (>/=12 atm) until the achievement of angiographic success (<20% residual stenosis) with a prespecified very high inflation pressure (VHP) strategy of 20 atm without intermediate inflations.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We conducted a parallel-group, nonrandomized study to evaluate the short- and long-term results in 136 consecutive eligible patients who underwent successful single Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation in vessels >/=3 mm. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), that is, death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR), were monitored for a minimum of 6 months. No significant differences were observed between the two strategies in terms of final minimal lumen diameter (HP, 3.0 +/- 0.5 vs VHP, 3. 1 +/- 0.5 mm) and acute gain (HP, 2.1 +/- 0.7 vs VHP, 2.2 +/- 0.6). The overall rate of subacute stent thrombosis was 0.7%. During a 405 +/- 148-day follow-up, 21 (28.8%) patients in the VHP group and 6 (9. 5%) in the HP group (P =.005) had MACE, with a TLR rate of 27.4% versus 7.9% (P =.009), respectively. By multivariate analysis, the use of VHP increased the odds of long-term MACE by a factor of 3.48 (P =.009). Among patients undergoing TLR, those treated with VHP had a greater lumen loss (HP, 1.83 +/- 0.57 vs VHP, 2.15 +/- 0.36 mm, P =.02) and a more frequent pattern of diffuse restenosis (71% vs 16%, P =.06).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In our study, the two strategies had similar acute and short-term results, but VHP was associated with a poorer long-term outcome. These data provide a rationale for a less aggressive strategy for stent deployment by optimizing rather than attempting to maximize inflation pressure and stent expansion.
authors.affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX 77555-0553, USA. buretsky@utmb.edu
authors.forename: B F
authors.initials: BF
authors.lastname: Uretsky
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Rosanio
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Lerakis
authors.forename: F W
authors.initials: FW
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Smiley
authors.forename: G A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Stouffer
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Tocchi
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Estella
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / Q000379:methods*; D015986:Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; D017023:Coronary Angiography; D018572:Disease-Free Survival; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D016017:Odds Ratio; D011312:Pressure; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012306:Risk; D012307:Risk Factors; D015607:Stents; D016896:Treatment Outcome