throbber
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
`© 2002 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
`Published by Elsevier Science Inc.
`
`STATE-OF-THE-ART PAPER
`
`Vol. 40, No. 6, 2002
`ISSN 0735-1097/02/$22.00
`PII S0735-1097(02)02123-X
`
`Selection of Coronary Stents
`Antonio Colombo, MD, FACC,* Goran Stankovic, MD,* Jeffrey W. Moses, MD, FACC†
`Milan, Italy; and New York, New York
`
`In clinical practice, the operator must decide which stent is most appropriate for the patient.
`This article focuses on the features of stent design that make a specific stent more or less
`suitable for a particular type of lesion or anatomy: the “average” coronary lesion, the lesion
`situated on a curve, the ostial lesion, the bifurcational lesion, the lesion located at the left main
`stem, the calcified lesion, the chronic total occlusion, the small vessel, the saphenous vein
`graft, acute or threatened vessel closure, and special situations such as coronary aneurysms and
`perforations.
`(J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:1021–33) © 2002 by the American College of
`Cardiology Foundation
`
`The implantation of coronary stents is an integral part of
`most interventional procedures for percutaneous revascular-
`ization. The wide acceptance of coronary stenting was based
`on the results of the BElgian NEtherlands STENT (BE-
`NESTENT)
`(1) and the STent REStenosis Study
`(STRESS) (2) trials and was facilitated by the elimination
`of anticoagulant therapy after stent implantation (3–5).
`The growing use of stents has stimulated the introduction
`of a number of different stent designs. Table 1 illustrates the
`characteristics of most of the stents available in 2002. The
`rapid increase in the number of designs makes any list
`quickly outdated. Some stent designs are similar, whereas
`others differ significantly. There are many reasons why
`different designs have been proposed. Besides the legal
`requirement to overcome a specific patent, there are con-
`cepts of physiologic mechanisms that stimulated inventors
`to introduce new designs. A primary concern of stent
`development was the need to increase flexibility to facilitate
`safe delivery. Manufacturers try to achieve this goal without
`compromising radial support and lesion coverage. Another
`element important for optimizing the clinical utility of a
`stent is its radiologic visibility.
`Many of the engineering considerations in stent design
`were adopted to improve the global acceptability of the
`device, rather than making a stent design for a specific type
`of coronary lesion. In clinical practice, the operator must
`decide which stent is most appropriate for the patient. This
`article focuses on the features of stent design that make a
`specific stent more or less suitable for a particular type of
`lesion or anatomy.
`Types of stents. Stents can be classified according to their
`mechanism of expansion (self-expanding or balloon-
`expandable), their composition (stainless steel, cobalt-based
`alloy, tantalum, nitinol, inert coating, active coating, or
`biodegradable), and their design (mesh structure, coil,
`slotted tube, ring, multi-design, or custom design) (Table
`
`From the *Columbus Hospital, Milan, Italy; and †Lenox Hill Hospital, New York,
`New York.
`Manuscript received February 12, 2002; revised manuscript received March 29,
`2002, accepted April 17, 2002.
`
`1). According to the manufacturers, all stents are suitable for
`implantation in native coronary arteries of the appropriate
`size. Some stents are approved for implantation in vein
`grafts. Few stents are specifically designed to be implanted
`in a particular lesion. The absolute or relative contraindica-
`tions to the use of stents apply to stents in general and not
`to a specific stent. Possible exceptions are the Multilink
`Ultra Stent (Guidant, Temecula, California), which is
`designed for vein graft implantation with a nine-cell design,
`by contrast with the six-cell design of the Multilink Tetra.
`The JoMed polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stent
`(JoMed, Rangendingen, Germany) is specifically made for
`uncommon applications such as coronary ruptures, aneu-
`rysms, and degenerated saphenous vein grafts.
`Different characteristics such as strut thickness, metal to
`artery ratio, degree of radiopacity, degree of foreshortening,
`and recoil of many currently used stents are shown in Table
`1. All stents are now available premounted on a dedicated
`delivery system. The capacity of a stent to span a lesion
`depends not only on the diameter of the crimped stent
`(Table 2), but also on the amount of friction of the delivery
`system and stent, flaring of the distal struts during interac-
`tion with the lesion, flexibility of the stent and of the
`delivery balloon, and pushability of the delivery system. It is
`not surprising to observe a stent with a larger crossing
`profile cross a lesion easier than a narrower stent with less
`flexibility.
`Two interesting findings came from the stent versus stent
`randomized trials: 1) the GR-II stent (Cook, Bloomington,
`Indiana) proved clearly inferior—as far as early complica-
`tions, binary restenosis, and target lesion revascularization
`rate—to the Palmaz-Schatz stent (Cordis, a Johnson &
`Johnson Company, Warren, New Jersey) (6); and 2) the
`performance of the various other stents and the associated
`clinical outcome were not different from the Palmaz-Schatz
`stent. The slightly better deliverability of some stents
`compared with the Palmaz-Schatz stent, as seen in some of
`equivalency trials, has now only historical value. Stents used
`nowadays perform significantly better than any of the
`early-generation devices.
`
`IPR2020-01343
`
`Page 1
`
`Medtronic Ex-1804
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`1022
`
`Colombo etal.
`Stent Selection
`
`JACC Vol. 40, No. 6, 2002
`September 18, 2002:1021–33
`
`Abbreviations and Acronyms
`IVUS ⫽ intravascular ultrasound
`PTFE ⫽ polytetrafluoroethylene
`PTCA ⫽ percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
`
`Based on our experience with multiple stent systems, we
`submit the following observations concerning the applica-
`tion of different stents for specific lesion subsets.
`The “average” coronary lesion. Stents were initially indi-
`cated for proximal, non-angulated lesions, whereas subse-
`quent generation stents were developed for lesions of
`tortuous anatomy and complex situations. Some stents are
`more flexible than others or have a smaller profile and
`therefore are more deliverable. These extra features become
`necessary only in selected situations. Most stents currently
`available are suitable for the majority of coronary lesions,
`with some exceptions.
`The stents to be used in the “average” coronary lesion are
`the new slotted, tubular stents and some new designs of ring
`stents.
`The primary goal for stenting most coronary lesions is to
`achieve the optimal
`lumen cross-sectional area without
`traumatizing the artery. Currently, the achievement of a
`large final lumen diameter is the most secure means of
`limiting restenosis (7). Other appropriate concerns for stent
`choice are adequate lesion coverage, minimal recoil, and
`limited plaque prolapse. In addition, because stent length is
`an independent predictor of restenosis, it is preferable to
`avoid the use of excessive metal (8,9).
`The Palmaz-Schatz stent led the way but now has passed
`the baton to the BxVelocity (Cordis), as demonstrated in
`the Very Early Nimopidine Use in Stroke (VENUS) trial, a
`multicenter registry of the Cordis BxVelocity stent (10). It
`is likely that the BxVelocity stent will be replaced by the
`sirolimus-coated BxVelocity (11,12). The BxVelocity stent
`is applicable for everyday use, and there are only a few
`conditions in which this stent may not be satisfactory. The
`BxVelocity stent is available in three different patterns of
`cells according to the vessel size in which the stent will be
`implanted: six cells for vessels up to 3 mm, seven cells for
`vessels up to 4 mm, and nine cells for vessels up to 5 mm.
`The new version, BxSonic (Cordis), has the same stent
`mounted on an improved delivery system that is compatible
`with the 5F guiding catheter (lower profile proximal hypo-
`tube shaft, 1.9F vs. 2.6F shaft of the BxVelocity, and
`0.5-mm balloon overhang on each side).
`The heparin-coated Palmaz-Schatz stent had a low
`incidence of subacute stent thrombosis, with only five
`thrombotic events (0.4%) in 1,169 patients treated with this
`stent in the following trials: the BENESTENT II pilot
`study (13), BENESTENT II randomized study (14), and
`the Total Occlusion Study of CAnada (TOSCA) (15), as
`well as in two protocols involving patients with acute
`myocardial infarction: the stenting in Primary Angioplasty
`
`in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) pilot study (16) and the
`stent PAMI randomized study (17). A multicenter feasibil-
`ity study (use of the Hepacoat BxVelocity stent and an
`antithrOmbotic regimen of asPirin alonE [HOPE]) is
`under way to examine the safety of the heparin-coated
`BxVelocity stent (Hepacoat, Cordis) in “low-risk” patients
`treated with antiplatelet therapy consisting of only aspirin.
`The initial results in 202 patients showed no acute stent
`thrombosis and a rate of 1% of subacute thrombosis (one
`patient with thrombocytosis and one with post-trauma)
`(18).
`The Multilink Tetra stent (Guidant) has functional
`characteristics that are similar to the BxVelocity stent. The
`overall performance of these two stents is excellent, with
`only selected situations where the Tetra appears to be more
`deliverable. A unique feature of the Tetra delivery system
`(similar to the Ultra) is its shaft length of 143 cm, which is
`3 cm longer than the BxVelocity stent, whereas all the other
`delivery systems are 138 or 135 cm long. Compared with
`the Multilink Tetra stent,
`the Multilink Penta stent
`(Guidant) has a modified link pattern, which improves
`flexibility and scaffolding and maintains side-branch access
`with the possibility to expand the cell toward the side
`branch up to 4 mm in diameter.
`The careful observer may find more stent-to-vessel con-
`formability with the Tetra stent, but no one knows whether
`this feature has any clinical consequences. Preserving the
`original shear stress pattern of the arterial segment may
`lower the amount of tissue hyperplasia (19).
`The NIR stent (Medinol, Jerusalem, Israel; and Scimed,
`Boston Scientific, Maple Grove, Minnesota), with its new
`“sox” delivery system,
`is another important stent to be
`considered for the “average” lesion. The NIR stent provides
`excellent plaque coverage, which may be an advantage in
`lesions prone to plaque prolapse. Plaque may prolapse
`between stent struts in large vessels with a reference diam-
`eter ⱖ4 mm. The NIR stent is available with a seven-cell or
`nine-cell structure, which improves plaque support in large
`vessels, including saphenous vein grafts. The sox delivery
`system protects the stent while negotiating through calcified
`lesion or crossing another stent. These features are unique to
`this type of stent delivery system.
`The performance of this stent was evaluated against the
`Palmaz-Schatz stent in the NIR Vascular Advanced North
`American (NIRVANA) trial randomized study (20). This
`trial reported a follow-up restenosis rate of 19.3% for the
`NIR stent and 22.4% for the Palmaz-Schatz stent. The
`moderate rigidity of the NIR stent discourages its use
`through tortuous segments and for lesions located at a
`severe bend. Because the NIR stent becomes rigid on
`deployment, this stent may produce a hinge effect that is
`associated with an increase in restenosis (21). Figure 1
`demonstrates the hinge effect caused by the NIR stent. This
`lesion restenosed four months later at the distal extremity of
`the stent (Fig. 2). The operator should foresee this possi-
`
`Page 2
`
`IPR2020-01343
`
`Medtronic Ex-1804
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`JACC Vol. 40, No. 6, 2002
`September 18, 2002:1021–33
`
`Colombo et al.
`Stent Selection
`
`1023
`
`bility and select a more flexible type of stent in lesions with
`a small radius of curvature.
`The positive features of these three stents are also related
`to the delivery balloon: 1) there is now near perfect
`retention, which has eliminated the problem of stent loss; 2)
`there is minimal overhang of the delivery balloon from the
`stent, which limits trauma and the risk of peri-stent dissec-
`tion; and 3) there is low compliance, which assures a more
`homogeneous stent deployment (Fig. 3).
`The beStent (Medtronic AVE, Minneapolis, Minnesota)
`and now the beStent 2, with a closer strut design, are other
`stents to consider. The unique feature of this stent is the
`presence of proximal and distal gold markers that allow very
`precise placement. Another positive feature of the beStent,
`but not the beStent 2, is the presence of a large or open cell
`design that facilitates access to side branches.
`The Biodivysio stent (Biocompatibles, Galway, Ireland)
`is another sturdy device with optimal scaffolding that can be
`considered for most lesions. This stent is available also with
`an open-cell design that is suitable for lesions involving the
`origin of side branches. Compared with the open-cell
`design, the added support design has an extra strut between
`interlocking arrowheads, which provides greater coverage
`for lesions that require additional support.
`The Biodivysio stent was recently evaluated against the
`Duet stent (Guidant) in a randomized trial (bioDIvysio
`STent IN randomized Control Trial [DISTINCT]). Both
`stents showed an excellent low restenosis rate of 19% in
`selected favorable lesions. The standard Biodivysio stent
`delivery system appears to be more rigid compared with
`other stents and is not ideal for very tortuous arteries. New
`versions of the delivery system will soon be released to
`overcome this potential
`limitation. The availability of a
`small-vessel design with this stent, which is very trackable
`and has a low profile, should be kept in mind when
`confronted with complex anatomy. A unique feature of the
`Biodivysio family is their phosphorylcholine coating, which
`lowers platelet adhesion to the stent struts and may be used
`as a platform for drug delivery.
`Among the ring stents, the new S7 (Medtronic AVE)
`provides more plaque coverage than the S670 and has an
`angiographic appearance very similar to the slotted, tubular
`stents. This stent is appropriate for most lesions. In addi-
`tion, the flexibility, conformability, and lower friction typ-
`ical of the S7 ring design improves deliverability in complex
`anatomies or when passing through a stent. An important
`characteristic of the AVE delivery system is minimal bal-
`loon overhang (Fig. 3).
`Among the stainless-steel stents with a good track record,
`the family of stents from PURA (Devon Medical, Ham-
`burg, Germany) and the V-Flex plus (Cook) should be
`mentioned.
`To make the choice more difficult, the interventionist is
`confronted with other excellent stents such as the Sorin
`Sirius Carbostent (Sorin Biomedica Cardio, Saluggia, Italy),
`with its recently refined delivery system (Sorin Syncro
`
`in difficult
`Carbostent). This stent performs quite well
`anatomies and lesions, has platinum end markers, and is
`covered with a thin layer of turbostratic carbon with the
`intent to decrease its interaction with platelets. A recent
`registry report showing a restenosis rate of 11% and a
`bimodal distribution of
`the loss index (22) raises the
`possibility of enhanced biocompatibility of the carbon-
`coated stent for subjects with an allergy to metal compo-
`nents present in stainless steel (23). At least four other
`carbon-coated stents are currently available in Europe: the
`BioDiamond (Plasma Chem, Mainz, Germany), the Dia-
`mond Flex (Phytis, Dreieich, Germany), the MAC carbon
`stent (AMG, Raesfeld-Erle, Germany), and the Tenax
`(Biotronik, Berlin, Germany). Randomized trials are in
`progress to test the hypothesis that these inertly coated
`stents may have advantages over the stainless-steel stents.
`Lesions situated on a curve (>90°) or immediately fol-
`lowed by a curve. Changing the natural conformation of a
`coronary vessel may have an unfavorable effect on flow
`dynamics and increase the risk of adverse events during
`follow-up (24).
`For this reason, we prefer stents that conform to the
`longitudinal profile of the vessel without producing plaque
`prolapse in the curved segment. The traditional ring design,
`such as the S670, is quite conformable but may allow too
`much plaque protrusion when opened in a curved segment.
`In this respect, the new S7 is a significant improvement.
`Slotted, tubular stents with thin struts are also conformable
`(PURA AS and AL 0.07, 0.075-mm beStent, 0.075-mm
`Sorin Carbostent, 0.08-mm Tenax, 0.09-mm Biodivysio,
`and 0.09-mm JoStent). Strut thickness is not the only
`variable that may affect conformability; the complete stent
`design may be more important. For example, the NIR stent,
`which is thinner (0.1 mm) than the BxVelocity (0.14 mm),
`has lower conformability. The Tetra and Penta stents have
`variable strut thicknesses (0.091– 0.124 mm), with excellent
`conformability. The NIRflex, the new version of the NIR
`stent, also has excellent conformability.
`Ostial lesions. Ostial lesions are classified as either aorto-
`ostial or coronary-ostial. For aorto-ostial
`lesions,
`the
`slotted-tube design, preferably with strong radial support,
`low recoil, and radiologic visibility, is the most appropriate
`one (25). New ring designs such as the S670 and S7 are also
`appropriate in this setting.
`The recent availability of stents with end markers may
`improve precise positioning. These stents have thin struts,
`so our preference is to implant them only in coronary-ostial
`rather than aorto-ostial locations. The strong elastic recoil
`inherent to the aorta favors the use of thicker struts to
`provide greater resistance when dealing with lesions involv-
`ing the true coronary ostia or the aortic insertion of a
`saphenous vein graft.
`When considering the gold-plated NIR Royal for an
`aorto-ostial lesion, the operator must balance its advantage
`of better visibility and more precise positioning with its
`disadvantage of having a higher angiographic restenosis rate
`
`Page 3
`
`IPR2020-01343
`
`Medtronic Ex-1804
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`1024
`
`Colombo etal.
`Stent Selection
`
`Table 1. Stent Engineering Data
`
`Product
`
`Manufacturer
`
`Structure
`
`Material
`
`Strut (Wire)
`Thickness
`(mm)
`
`Metal/Artery
`(%)*
`
`Recoil
`(%)
`
`Shortening
`(%)
`
`Radiopacity Markers
`
`Lengths (mm)
`
`Diameters (mm)
`
`Sinusoidal ring
`Medtronic
`AVE S670
`Sinusoidal ring
`Medtronic
`AVE S7
`Slotted tube
`Medtronic
`beStent 2
`Slotted tube
`Biocompatibles
`Biodivysio AS
`Slotted tube
`Biocompatibles
`Biodivysio OC
`BxVelocity/Hepacoat Cordis, Johnson & Johnson Slotted tube
`
`0.127
`Stainless steel
`0.102
`Stainless steel
`Stainless steel 0.085–0.095
`Stainless steel
`0.091
`Stainless steel
`0.091
`Stainless steel
`0.14
`
`BxSonic
`
`Cordis, Johnson & Johnson Slotted tube
`
`Stainless steel
`
`0.14
`
`Carbostent Sirius
`Carbostent Syncro
`Cook V-Flex
`Diamond Flex AS
`JoStent Flex
`
`JoStent Plus
`
`JoStent Graft
`
`Sorin
`Sorin
`Cook
`Phytis
`Jomed
`
`Jomed
`
`Jomed
`
`Slotted tube
`Slotted tube
`Slotted tube
`Slotted tube
`Slotted tube
`
`Stainless steel
`Stainless steel
`Stainless steel
`Stainless steel
`Stainless steel
`
`Slotted tube
`
`Stainless steel
`
`Slotted tube
`
`Stainless steel
`
`Boston Scientific
`LP Stent
`MAC Carbon Stent AMG
`
`Slotted tube
`Slotted tube
`
`Stainless steel
`Stainless steel
`
`0.075
`0.075
`0.07
`0.075
`0.09
`
`0.09
`
`0.20
`
`0.1
`0.085
`
`19
`17–23
`12–17
`19–25
`9–12
`15
`
`15
`
`12–17
`12–17
`15
`10–18
`16
`
`16
`
`100
`
`15
`8–15
`
`3
`2
`2
`2
`4
`2.5
`
`2.4
`
`3–5
`3–5
`21
`3–5
`4
`
`4
`
`2
`
`2
`3
`
`3
`3
`0
`4
`4
`1.7
`
`1.7
`
`0
`0
`0
`1
`5
`
`5
`
`3
`
`3–5
`1
`
`1
`
`Medium No
`Medium No
`Low
`Yes
`Low
`No
`Low
`No
`Medium No
`
`Medium No
`
`Low
`Low
`Low
`Low
`Low
`
`Low
`
`High
`
`Low
`Low
`
`High
`
`Yes
`Yes
`No
`No
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`No
`
`No
`
`9, 12, 15, 19, 25
`9, 12, 15, 19, 25
`12, 16, 20, 24
`9, 12, 16, 20, 25
`9, 16, 26, 32
`
`9, 17, 27, 33
`
`9, 12, 16, 19, 26
`
`8, 12, 18, 24
`9, 13, 17, 22
`
`9, 12, 15, 18, 24, 30 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`9, 12, 15, 18, 24, 30 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`9, 12, 15, 18, 24, 30 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`11, 15
`3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`15, 18, 22, 28
`3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 32 2.25, 2.5, 2.75, 3.0,
`3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0
`8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33 2.25, 2.5, 2.75, 3.0,
`3.5, 4.0
`2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`2.5, 3.0, 3.5
`2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5,
`4.0, 4.5
`2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5,
`4.0, 4.5
`2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0,
`4.5, 5.0
`2.5, 30, 3.5, 4.0
`2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5,
`4.0, 4.5
`2.5, 2.75, 3.0, 3.5,
`4.0
`2.5, 2.75, 3.0, 3.5,
`4.0
`2.75, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`
`9, 12, 13, 15, 16,
`17, 19, 23
`8, 13, 18, 23, 28
`
`JACC Vol. 40, No. 6, 2002
`September 18, 2002:1021–33
`
`3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0
`2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5,
`4.0, 4.5, 5.0
`2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5,
`4.0, 4.5, 5.0
`2.25, 2.5, 2.75, 3.0,
`3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0
`3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5,
`5.0
`3.5, 4.0
`2.5, 3.0
`2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
`
`(continued)
`
`8, 13, 15, 18, 23,
`28, 33
`13, 18, 28, 38
`9, 16, 25, 32
`
`9, 16, 25, 32
`
`8, 12, 16, 20, 24,
`28, 32
`8, 9, 14, 18
`7, 15
`
`6, 10, 16, 24, 28
`6, 10, 16, 24, 28
`10, 15, 20, 25, 30
`10, 15, 20, 30
`
`1
`
`2–3
`
`2–3
`
`2
`3
`
`5
`
`5
`
`5
`2
`
`3
`3
`5
`5
`
`3–4
`
`3–4
`
`5
`3
`
`3
`
`5
`
`8
`1–5
`
`5
`7
`3
`5
`
`Medium No
`
`Medium No
`
`Medium No
`Low
`No
`
`High
`
`High
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Medium No
`Low
`No
`
`Low
`Low
`Low
`Low
`
`No
`No
`Yes
`No
`
`15–25
`11–18
`
`11–18
`
`11–17
`
`18
`10–15
`
`10–18
`10–18
`14–22
`18
`
`0.1
`
`0.132
`
`0.062
`0.12
`
`0.07
`0.07
`0.08
`0.08
`
`Megaflex Genius
`
`Eurocor
`
`Slotted tube
`
`Stainless steel
`
`0.12
`
`20
`
`Multilink Tetra
`
`Guidant
`
`Slotted tube
`
`Stainless steel
`
`0.091–0.124
`
`12–20
`
`Multilink Penta
`
`Guidant
`
`Slotted tube
`
`Stainless steel
`
`0.091–0.124
`
`12–16
`
`Multilink Ultra
`NIR, 7 cells and 9
`cells
`NIR Royal
`
`Express
`
`P-S 153
`PURA-A
`
`Stainless steel
`Slotted tube
`Guidant
`Medinol, Boston Scientific Multicell design Stainless steel
`
`0.127–0.101
`0.1
`
`Boston Scientific
`
`Medinol, Boston Scientific Multicell design Stainless steel,
`gold
`Multicell design Stainless steel,
`gold
`Stainless steel
`Stainless steel
`
`Cordis, Johnson & Johnson Slotted tube
`Devon
`Slotted tube
`
`PURA Vario AL
`PURA Vario AS
`Teneo Tenax-XR
`Tsunami
`Small-vessel stents
`
`Devon
`Devon
`Biotronik
`Terumo
`
`Slotted tube
`Slotted tube
`Slotted tube
`Slotted tube
`
`Stainless steel
`Stainless steel
`Stainless steel
`Stainless steel
`
`Page 4
`
`IPR2020-01343
`
`Medtronic Ex-1804
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Colombo et al.
`Stent Selection
`
`1025
`
`than the stainless-steel NIR (37.5% vs. 20.6%, p ⬍ 0.001),
`as reported in the NIR Ultimate Gold-Gilded Equivalency
`Trial (NUGGET) (26). Similar findings were reported with
`a gold-coated stent manufactured by a different company
`(27).
`For aorto-ostial lesions with a reference vessel size of ⱖ4
`mm in diameter, we have had a positive clinical experience
`with the BxVelocity, the nine-cell NIR, and the Ultra. All
`of these slotted-tube stents maintain good radial force, even
`when dilated to large diameters.
`Bifurcational lesions. When approaching a bifurcational
`lesion, it may be preferable to have a stent with large side
`openings between the struts that can easily permit passage of
`a balloon or second stent into the side branch. Figure 4
`shows several slotted-tube stents with the cross-sectional
`area of the cell following stent dilation and with the
`cross-sectional area of the same cell following the maximal
`opening of a balloon inflated across the cell into the side
`branch (28). Many slotted-tube stents are suitable for
`stenting a bifurcation, with the exception of the NIR stent.
`The closed-cell design of the NIR does not allow significant
`expansion of the opening toward the side branch, even after
`crossing and inflating a balloon. If the operator decides to
`use the NIR stent, the seven-cell design should be used
`instead of the nine-cell design.
`Another option is to use a stent with a large side opening,
`such as the Biodivysio open-cell design or the S670. The
`advantage of this decision is that the initial access to the side
`branch is facilitated. A possible disadvantage is incomplete
`prolapse of one strut toward the side branch following a
`“kissing” balloon dilation (i.e., dilating 2 balloons simulta-
`neously into both branches of a bifurcation). The concept of
`strut prolapse from the main branch toward the side branch
`has been pioneered by Dr. Marie Claude Morice and Dr.
`Tierry Lefevre and termed “stenting both branches with one
`stent.” When the design is very open, there is less possibility
`for a strut to straddle across the side branch. Slotted-tube
`stents that best demonstrate this feature are the beStent and
`Carbostent, but the BxVelocity and Tetra are also adequate
`(Fig. 5).
`Whichever stent the operator uses for a bifurcation, it is
`important to perform a “kissing” balloon inflation at the end
`of the procedure to correct the stent distortion that occurs
`after balloon inflation in the side branch (29). If the
`operator finds it appropriate to stent both branches, we
`recommend the modified T or V techniques.
`Lesions located at the left main stem. Left main stem
`lesions may involve treatment of an aorto-ostial
`lesion
`and/or a lesion located in the body of the left main artery.
`Occasionally, there is a need to treat the distal left main
`stem as a bifurcational lesion.
`The reference size of the left main coronary artery is
`favorable to stent implantation in terms of the restenosis
`rate. The major problem is that in an unprotected left main
`artery, stent restenosis may manifest either as sudden death
`or unstable angina rapidly followed by death. For this
`
`JACC Vol. 40, No. 6, 2002
`September 18, 2002:1021–33
`
`2.5
`2.25,2.5
`2.0,2.5
`2.0,2.5
`
`6,10,16,24,28
`8,13,18,23,28
`9,17,27,33
`9,16,26,32
`
`9,12,15,19,25
`8,13,18,23,28,322.25,2.5,2.75
`10,15,18
`9,12,15,18,24,302.5
`2.5
`9,12,15,18,24
`
`2.0,2.5
`
`2.5
`
`No
`No
`No
`No
`
`Yes
`No
`No
`Yes
`No
`
`Low
`Medium
`Low
`Low
`
`Low
`Low
`Low
`Low
`Medium
`
`Diameters(mm)
`
`Lengths(mm)
`
`RadiopacityMarkers
`
`7
`
`11
`
`0
`
`4
`
`2
`
`0
`
`5
`
`5
`
`1.5
`
`Shortening
`
`(%)
`
`4
`
`4
`
`4
`
`3
`
`3–5
`2.5
`
`1
`
`1.6–2.2
`
`2
`
`(%)
`Recoil
`
`10–18
`15
`16
`16
`
`12–17
`15
`
`9
`
`12–17
`20
`
`Metal/Artery
`
`(%)*
`
`0.07
`0.099
`0.09
`0.09
`
`0.075
`0.14
`0.05
`
`0.085–0.095
`
`0.127
`
`Thickness
`Strut(Wire)
`
`(mm)
`
`Stainlesssteel
`Stainlesssteel
`Stainlesssteel
`Stainlesssteel
`
`Slottedtube
`Slottedtube
`Slottedtube
`Slottedtube
`
`*Doesnotnecessarilymeanvesselwallcoverage.
`
`Devon
`GuidantACS
`Jomed
`Jomed
`
`PURAVarioAS
`MultilinkPixel
`JostentPlus
`
`JoStentFlex
`
`cells
`
`Stainlesssteel
`Stainlesssteel
`Stainlesssteel
`Stainlesssteel
`Stainlesssteel
`
`CarbostentSirius,4
`Sorin
`Slottedtube
`BxVelocity
`Cordis,Johnson&JohnsonSlottedtube
`Slottedtube
`BiodivysioSV
`Biocompatibles
`Slottedtube
`beStent(4crowns)MedtronicAVE
`Sinusoidalring
`MedtronicAVE
`AVES660
`
`Material
`
`Structure
`
`Manufacturer
`
`Product
`
`Table1.Continued
`
`Page 5
`
`IPR2020-01343
`
`Medtronic Ex-1804
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`1026
`
`Colombo etal.
`Stent Selection
`
`Table 2. Crossing Profile
`
`JACC Vol. 40, No. 6, 2002
`September 18, 2002:1021–33
`
`Product
`
`AVE S670
`AVE S660
`beStent 2
`Biodivysio AS
`Biodivysio SV
`BxVelocity
`BxSonic
`Carbostent
`Multilink Tetra
`Multilink Penta
`Multilink Pixel
`NIR with sox
`Express
`
`Manufacturer
`
`2.5-mm Diameter
`
`3.0-mm Diameter
`
`Crossing Profile*
`
`Medtronic
`Medtronic
`Medtronic
`Biocompatibles
`Biocompatibles
`Cordis, Johnson & Johnson
`Cordis, Johnson & Johnson
`Sorin
`Guidant ACS
`Guidant ACS
`Guidant ACS
`Medinol, Boston Scientific
`Boston Scientific
`
`0.99
`1.07
`
`0.84
`1.07
`1.07
`1.02
`1.04
`1.04
`0.93
`1.09
`1.02
`
`1.09
`
`1.17
`1.07
`
`1.17
`1.14
`1.04
`1.12
`1.07
`
`1.12
`1.09
`
`*Data presented reflect measurements performed by individual manufacturers; the method used to measure and the exact site of
`measurements may differ among different stents.
`
`reason, when stent implantation in an unprotected left main
`artery is clinically indicated, we frequently debulk the lesion
`with directional atherectomy to minimize the risk of reste-
`nosis (30).
`Selection of the stent to be used depends on the issues
`discussed previously concerning ostial lesions and bifurca-
`tional lesions. The only unique aspect of left main stenting
`is the final size of this vessel. It is not unusual, especially if
`intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is employed (31), to per-
`form a post-stent dilation with a balloon ⬎4 mm. For this
`reason, when the left main artery appears large, we recom-
`mend using slotted-tube stents that can be expanded ⬎4
`mm. The NIR nine-cell, BxVelocity, Tetra and Ultra are
`excellent choices. When the stent is overexpanded and it is
`located in the aorto-ostial position, it is important to realize
`that a significant foreshortening will occur. The operator
`should take this into account when initially placing the stent
`by placing the proximal end of the stent 1 to 2 mm into the
`aorta. In addition,
`if the ostium is left uncovered, the
`operator should not hesitate to place a second stent. The use
`of IVUS may be beneficial
`in determining the precise
`
`position of a stent. The use of stents with no foreshortening
`and with markers like the beStent or Carbostent is an
`important consideration in this context. As a general rule,
`when treating an aorto-ostial lesion, it is important to avoid
`using a stent that is very short, such as an 8- or 9-mm stent.
`This recommendation becomes even more important
`when dealing with a lesion at the ostium of the left main
`artery. We have seen stents ejected from the left main
`stem at
`the time of postdilation due to their short
`anchoring length.
`Calcified lesions. Despite the widespread notion that cal-
`cium affects stent expansion (32), there are only a few
`reports specifically dealing with this issue (33,34). The
`general view is that stent expansion in a calcified lesion will
`yield a smaller final lumen than will expansion in a non-
`calcified lesion. Adequate final expansion is usually achieved
`by stretching the non-calcified arc of the vessel. If an
`adequate final lumen size is achieved, this approach does not
`seem to affect restenosis. To obtain an adequate final lumen
`size,
`it is important to have a slotted-tube stent with
`minimal recoil and good radial strength. The NIR, BxVe-
`
`Figure 1. (A) Baseline angiogram of a lesion (arrow) in the proximal right coronary artery. (B) Angiogram after implantation of a nine-cell, 16-mm-long
`NIR stent. The hinge site at the end of the stent is clear (arrow).
`
`Page 6
`
`IPR2020-01343
`
`Medtronic Ex-1804
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`JACC Vol. 40, No. 6, 2002
`September 18, 2002:1021–33
`
`Colombo et al.
`Stent Selection
`
`1027
`
`Chronic total occlusions. Stent implantation for chronic
`total occlusions must address two problems: 1) the amount
`of plaque mass in these types of lesions is large; and 2) it is
`not rare that passage through the occluded segment occurs
`by creating a false lumen with reentry.
`These two elements mandate the insertion of a stent with
`good lesion coverage and radial support. The Palmaz-
`Schatz stent was used in the Stenting In Chronic Coronary
`Occlusion (SICCO) study (36), which reported a significant
`benefit of stent implantation (32% restenosis) in comparison
`with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
`(PTCA) (74% restenosis) after recanalization of chronic
`total occlusions. In TOSCA (15), 410 patients with non-
`acute native coronary occlusions were randomized to PTCA
`or primary stenting with the heparin-coated Palmaz-Schatz
`stent. With 95.6% angiographic follow-up, primary stenting
`resulted in a 44% reduction in failed patency (10.9% vs.
`19.5%, p ⫽ 0.024) and a 45% reduction in clinically driven
`target vessel revascularization at six months (8.4% vs. 15.4%,
`p ⫽ 0.03).
`In addition to various slotted-tube stents (e.g., NIR,
`BxVelocity), the Wallstent needs to be considered for
`dealing with a large vessel, especially for the right coronary
`artery (37).
`The general rule for treating a chronic total occlusion is to
`use a stent with good plaque coverage with a closed-cell
`design, allowing minimal plaque prolapse in this setting
`where there is a large plaque burden.
`
`Figure 2. Four-month follow-up angiogram of the lesion in Figure 1,
`showing restenosis at the hinge site (arrow).
`
`locity, Tetra, and AVE-S family stents are all reasonable
`choices.
`In calcified lesions, the most important part of the
`procedure is adequate preparation of the lesion before stent
`implantation. The amount of calcium visible on X-ray
`underestimates the amount of calcium observed on IVUS.
`Intravascular ultrasound can also distinguish whether the
`calcium is in a superficial or deep location (35). Efforts to
`evaluate the lesion and to prepare the implantation site with
`rotational atherectomy or by cutting the balloon will be well
`rewarded. Post-dilation with a short, non-compliant bal-
`loon is another important step.
`
`Figure 3. Length of balloon protrusion for commonly used stents.
`
`Page 7
`
`IPR2020-01343
`
`Medtronic Ex-1804
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`1028
`
`Colombo etal.
`Stent Selection
`
`JACC Vol. 40, No. 6, 2002
`September 18, 2002:1021–33
`
`Figure 4. Area of the stent cell at nominal (solid bars) and maximal (open bars) expansion for several slotted-tube stents.
`
`Vessels smaller than 3.0 mm in diameter. Stent implan-
`tation in small vessels is associated with a number of
`problems. Initially, no stents were specifically made to be
`expanded in small vessels with the capacity to gain optimal
`radial support at diame

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket