Objective: To observe and characterise vessel injury after stenting using optical coherence tomography (OCT), to propose a systematic OCT classification for periprocedural vessel trauma, to evaluate its frequency in stable versus unstable patients and to assess its clinical impact during the hospitalisation period.
Setting: Stenting causes vessel injury.
Design and interventions: All consecutive patients in whom OCT was performed after stent implantation were included in the study. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of tissue prolapse, intra-stent dissection and edge dissection were performed.
Results: Seventy-three patients (80 vessels) were analysed. Tissue prolapse within the stented segment was visible in 78/80 vessels (97.5%). Median number of tissue prolapse sites was 8 (IQR 4–19), mean (SD) area 1.04 (0.9) mm2. Intra-stent dissection flaps were visible in 69/80 vessels (86.3%) (median number 3 (IQR 1.25–6), maximum flap length 450 (220) μm). Fifty-five out of 80 vessels (68.8%) showed dissection cavities (median number 2 (IQR 0–4.75), maximum depth 340 (170) μm). Edge dissection was visible in 20 vessels (mean (SD) length flap 744 (439) μm). The frequency of tissue prolapse or intra-stent dissection was similar in stable and unstable patients (95.6% vs 100%, p = 0.5 for tissue prolapse; 91.1% vs 82.9%, p = 0.3 for intra-stent dissection). There were no events during the hospitalisation period.
Conclusions: OCT allows a detailed visualisation of vessel injury after stent implantation and enables a systematic classification and quantification in vivo. In this study, frequency of tissue prolapse or intra-stent dissections after stenting was high, irrespective of the clinical presentation of the patients, and was not associated with clinical events during hospitalisation.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
See Editorial, p 1895
Patient consent Obtained.