Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 7, 2025
Imaging In-Stent Restenosis: An Inexpensive, Reliable, and Rapid Preclinical Model
Published on: September 14, 2009
Comparison of Stent Expansion Using a Volumetric Versus the Conventional Method Through Optical Coherence Tomography
Luis Augusto Palma Dallan1, Gabriel Tensol Rodrigues Pereira1, Vladislav Zimin1
1Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Introduction:
A volumetric approach to measure stent expansion derived from optical coherence tomography (OCT) is superior in regards to clinical outcomes when compared to the conventional method. The current software already performs a semi-automatic assessment and it is available as a clinical tool, however data is still scarce. We evaluated the stent expansion analysis that uses a volumetric vessel model, called minimum expansion index - MEI and compared to the conventional model, which utilizes the minimum stent area expansion (MSAx) indexed to the references, and its potential impact on procedural decision-making strategy in percutaneous coronary intervention.
Methods:
This was a prospective, all-comers single center study, from all patients undergoing OCT-guided PCI between September 2018 and May 2019. We utilized the APTIVUE™ OPTIS 5.2 software (Abbott, Santa Clara, CA) to evaluate MEI and MSAx measurements after reference adjustments.
Results:
We included 100 patients with mean age of 64 ± 12.5 years, 68% were men, and the main arteries analyzed through OCT were LAD (48%), RCA (31%) and LCx (21%). The mean MEI was 77.6% ± 16.7% and the mean MSAx was 71.6% ± 16.9%. MEI location differed from MSAx in 70% of cases, and in those cases the mean distance between MEI and MSAx was 15.3 mm ± 12.4 mm. In 53% of the times, the stent underexpansion based on MEI was located proximally to the MSAx by 18.1 mm ± 11.8 mm. Furthermore, in 42% of the total cases, MEI would change the intervention strategy based on the stent underexpansion being in a different location ≥10 mm in comparison to MSAx (34%) associated with the discrepancy between expansion indexes for MEI and MSAx (22%).
Conclusion:
We concluded that MEI location did not correlate to the conventional MSAx in two thirds of the cases. Moreover, compared to MEI, the MSAx assessment yielded lower expansion values in different stent positions, potentially changing the appropriate post-stent optimization, which thus would impact the decision-making strategy in almost half of the patients.
