Samuel Wann, MD, MACC, Section Editor Am Heart Hosp J. 2010;8(2):99–101


Lozenge Reference


Coronary CT Angiography Clinic


Right Coronary Ostial Stent—Whether or Not to Use Computed Tomographic Angiography


Shoeb J Sitafalwalla, MD,1 Samuel Wann, MD, MACC2


Edward Passen, MD, FACC,1 Ravi Gurujal, MD1 and


As more stents are placed, greater need arises for post-procedure evaluation of stent patency and progression of native coronary disease in patients with recurrent symptoms. This follow-up becomes even more imperative when it is considered that in-stent restenosis occurs in nearly 7% of patients, even in the age of drug-eluting devices. The incidence of restenosis is even higher in cases of ostial stenting, stent overlap, and diabetes.1


M stent.1 Follow-up


exercise stress testing with radionuclide imaging is not recommended in asymptomatic patients within two years of an intervention.2


Limited experience exists in using


coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) to assess coronary stent patency. The authors present a case using cardiac CTA for the evaluation of a coronary stent in a clinical scenario that has not yet been addressed by appropriate, formal coronary CTA utilization criteria.


Case Presentation


A 77-year-old female with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presented with exertional angina and shortness of breath. She underwent exercise stress testing with nuclear imaging, reproducing her symptoms but failing to demonstrate electrocardiographic abnormalities or single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion defects. Left ventricular function was normal at rest, with no segmental wall-motion abnormalities and an ejection fraction of 60%. Due to continued symptoms highly suggestive of myocardial ischemia, the stress test was thought to be a false-negative.


ore than one million percutaneous coronary interventions are carried out each year in the US, 70% resulting in the placement of a coronary


The patient underwent coronary angiography, which revealed multiple non-critical lesions throughout the left coronary artery system. The left main coronary artery had a distal 20% lesion. The left anterior descending artery was normal, but the first diagonal branch had a 40–50% stenosis. A 30–40% proximal stenosis was noted in the left circumflex artery. Angiography of the right coronary artery (RCA) revealed complex 99% ostial and proximal stenosis associated with marked calcified plaque, see Figures 1A and 1B. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed on the right coronary lesion. Guide catheter seating at the right coronary ostium was difficult. Rotablation was performed due to the calcified plaque (two passes with a 1.5burr for 20 seconds at 170,000rpm). The lesion was then dilated with a 2.5x6mm cutting balloon, see Figure 1C. A 4x23mm drug-eluting stent was then deployed, with residual stenosis probably due to incomplete expansion of the calcified plaque, see Figure 1D. Post-stent dilatation was therefore performed with a 4.5x8mm high-pressure balloon, producing an improved but still suboptimal angiographic result, see Figure 1E. The patient was followed periodically by her cardiologist. She denied any chest pain or shortness of breath, but was relatively inactive. She was compliant with all her medications. Given her sedentary lifestyle, the ostial location of the lesion, the fact that previous non-invasive diagnostic testing failed to reveal a defect and the sub-optimal stent deployment due to calcified plaque, a decision was made to reassess the RCA anatomically. Coronary CTA was chosen rather than intra arterial coronary angiography, in light of the technical difficulties previously encountered engaging the RCA and the risk of damaging the ostial stent.


• 1. Division of Cardiology, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge; 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Wisconsin Heart Hospital. • Correspondence: Samuel Wann, MD, MACC, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Wisconsin Heart Hospital, Milwaukee, WI 53226.


Winter 2010 Right Coronary Ostial Stent—Whether or Not to Use Computed Tomographic Angiography 99


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68