Coronary Stent Strut Fractures: Classification, Prevalence and Clinical Associations
Rattachement africain : de, nl. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Introduction. The frequency, characteristics and clinical implications of Strut fractures (SFs) remain incompletely understood. Methods and results. A total of 185 (160 patients) newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) were imaged. SFs were found in 21 DES (11.4%) and were classified in four patterns: one single stacked strut (41%); two or more stacked struts (23%); deformation without gap (27%); transection (9%). In multivariable analysis, calcific and bifurcation lesions were associated with SF in DES (OR: 3.5 [1.1–11] and 4.0 [2.2–7.2], p < 0.05). Device eccentricity and asymmetry as well as optical coherence tomography (OCT) features of impaired strut healing were also associated with SF. The prevalence of fractures was similar in a set of 289 bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS). In a separate series of 20 device thromboses and 36 device restenoses, the prevalence of SF was higher (61.2% of DES and 66.7% of BRS, p < 0.001 for both), with a higher frequency of complex SF patterns (p < 0.0001). In logistic regression analysis, fractures were a correlate of device complications (p < 0.0001, OR = 24.9 [5.6–111] for DES and OR = 6.0 [1.8–20] for BRS). Discussion. The prevalence of OCT-diagnosed SF was unexpectedly high in the setting of elective controls and it increased by about three-fold in the setting of device failure. Fractures were associated with increased lesion complexity and device asymmetry/eccentricity and were more frequent in the setting of device failure such as restenosis and thrombosis.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Coronary Stent Strut Fractures: Classification, Prevalence and Clinical Associations
- Date Crossref
- 19/04/2021
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.