Coronary ostial stenosis

(Redirected from Coronary ostial disease)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiDoc Resources for Coronary ostial stenosis

Articles

Most recent articles on Coronary ostial stenosis

Most cited articles on Coronary ostial stenosis

Review articles on Coronary ostial stenosis

Articles on Coronary ostial stenosis in N Eng J Med, Lancet, BMJ

Media

Powerpoint slides on Coronary ostial stenosis

Images of Coronary ostial stenosis

Photos of Coronary ostial stenosis

Podcasts & MP3s on Coronary ostial stenosis

Videos on Coronary ostial stenosis

Evidence Based Medicine

Cochrane Collaboration on Coronary ostial stenosis

Bandolier on Coronary ostial stenosis

TRIP on Coronary ostial stenosis

Clinical Trials

Ongoing Trials on Coronary ostial stenosis at Clinical Trials.gov

Trial results on Coronary ostial stenosis

Clinical Trials on Coronary ostial stenosis at Google

Guidelines / Policies / Govt

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse on Coronary ostial stenosis

NICE Guidance on Coronary ostial stenosis

NHS PRODIGY Guidance

FDA on Coronary ostial stenosis

CDC on Coronary ostial stenosis

Books

Books on Coronary ostial stenosis

News

Coronary ostial stenosis in the news

Be alerted to news on Coronary ostial stenosis

News trends on Coronary ostial stenosis

Commentary

Blogs on Coronary ostial stenosis

Definitions

Definitions of Coronary ostial stenosis

Patient Resources / Community

Patient resources on Coronary ostial stenosis

Discussion groups on Coronary ostial stenosis

Patient Handouts on Coronary ostial stenosis

Directions to Hospitals Treating Coronary ostial stenosis

Risk calculators and risk factors for Coronary ostial stenosis

Healthcare Provider Resources

Symptoms of Coronary ostial stenosis

Causes & Risk Factors for Coronary ostial stenosis

Diagnostic studies for Coronary ostial stenosis

Treatment of Coronary ostial stenosis

Continuing Medical Education (CME)

CME Programs on Coronary ostial stenosis

International

Coronary ostial stenosis en Espanol

Coronary ostial stenosis en Francais

Business

Coronary ostial stenosis in the Marketplace

Patents on Coronary ostial stenosis

Experimental / Informatics

List of terms related to Coronary ostial stenosis

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1] Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Sudarshan Srivats, M.D., M.P.H.[2]

Overview

PCI of the ostial lesion is among the more technically demanding coronary interventions because these lesions are fibrotic, calcified, and elastic (prone to recoil) and are difficult to image and stent precisely. The central goals are accurate lesion assessment (angiography frequently underestimates ostial disease), adequate calcium modification before stenting, and precise stent placement that fully covers the ostium while protruding no more than ~1 mm into the aorta. Contemporary practice centers on second-generation drug-eluting stents, routine intravascular imaging (IVUS preferred over OCT for aorto-ostial disease), and dedicated positioning techniques to avoid geographic miss. Even so, aorto-ostial and ostial left circumflex lesions retain higher restenosis and target-lesion revascularization (TLR) rates than non-ostial lesions.

Definitions and Classification

An ostial lesion begins within 3–5 mm of the vessel origin.[1][2] Two categories carry different implications:

  • Aorto-ostial lesions – origin of the RCA or left main from the aorta. The aortic wall is effectively being stented; challenges include pressure damping, guide instability, aortocoronary dissection, and difficult re-engagement.[2][3]
  • Branch-ostial lesions – origin of the LAD, LCx, ramus, or a side branch. These carry the added risk of compromising the parent vessel and often overlap with bifurcation management.[2]

Etiology is most often atherosclerosis, but aorto-ostial stenosis can also follow prior aortic valve replacement, mediastinal radiation, vasculitides, and congenital anomalies.[4] Syphilitic aortitis is a rare historical cause and is not clinically prominent in modern practice.

Lesion Assessment

Angiography is unreliable at the ostium: catheter engagement can obscure or mimic disease, and eccentricity/angulation of the ostial left main is easily mistaken for stenosis.[4]

  • IVUS is the preferred imaging modality for aorto-ostial and ostial left main disease, providing plaque burden, calcium arc/thickness, vessel size, and lesion length; angiographic stenosis correlates poorly with minimal luminal area at the ostium. The 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI revascularization guideline recommends OCT as a reasonable alternative to IVUS except in ostial left main disease, because OCT requires blood clearance by contrast that is inadequate at the aorto-ostial junction.[3][5][6]
  • FFR can assess functional significance, especially for branch-ostial lesions where the need for PCI is uncertain. The guide catheter must be fully disengaged, since pressure damping artificially alters the measurement.[2][3]

Stent Choice: DES over BMS

Second-generation (new-generation) DES is standard. The 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline judged DES reasonable in aorto-ostial stenosis (Class IIa, LOE B), and this remains the accepted position.[4] Registry data are mixed on hard endpoints, but the consistent signal is reduced restenosis/TLR with DES and clear superiority of new-generation over early-generation DES.

Comparative outcomes of DES in ostial lesions
Study Population Key finding
Al-Lamee et al. 2011 346 aorto-ostial (DES vs BMS) Restenosis 20% vs 47%; TLR 12% vs 27%; adjusted MACE HR 0.50[7]
Park et al. 2007 356 aorto-ostial (DES vs pre-DES) In-segment restenosis 10.5% vs 26%; TLR 4.3% vs 11.6%[8]
Mitomo et al. 2018 334 RCA aorto-ostial New-gen DES lower 3-yr TLF (14.2% vs 37.7%) vs early-gen DES[9]
NHLBI Dynamic Registry 2012 775 ostial lesions No significant difference in death/MI/overall repeat revascularization DES vs BMS[10]

Lesion Preparation and Calcium Modification

Ostial lesions are calcified and recoil-prone; one series found coronary calcification in 48% of de novo ostial RCA lesions. Adequate preparation improves stent expansion and reduces dissection propagating into the aorta. Per the 2024 SCAI calcified-lesion consensus:[1]

  • For balloon-crossable lesions: cutting/scoring balloon, high-pressure noncompliant balloon, or intravascular lithotripsy; the ability to extend the device into the aorta helps anchoring and prevents geographic miss.
  • For balloon-uncrossable lesions: atherectomy. Rotational atherectomy is preferred with coaxial guide support and a 0.5 burr-to-artery ratio, or upsizing the guide by 1F to avoid guide-catheter ablation.
  • Orbital atherectomy at the ostium risks aortic dissection and should be used cautiously by experienced operators—advancing the device distal to the lesion and actuating retrogradely so the crown does not orbit freely at the ostium.[1]

Atheroablation improves stent delivery/expansion but has not been shown to reduce long-term restenosis; it is a preparation tool, not a stand-alone therapy.[5]

Technical Considerations

Pre-Dilation

Direct stenting confers many benefits in lesions other than the ostial lesion. Pre-dilation is critical in the ostial lesion for many reasons:

  1. Assurance that the aorto-ostial junction will dilate. The aorto-ostial junction may be more refractory to dilation and may have greater recoil. If the aorto-ostial junction will not dilate, it may not be a good idea to insert a stent because you may not be able to fully expand the stent.
  2. Use a low-pressure inflation to define the extent of the lesion proximally.

"Following stent placement with a residual lesion I once ruptured three balloons trying to dilate the stent at high pressures." — C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D.

"I like to inflate the balloon to 1-2 atmospheres and see how far the lesion extends proximally. While doing this I spin the gantry to gauge the proximal extent of the lesion in multiple angles. Any one view may underestimate the proximal extent of the lesion." — C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D.

Debulking

Debulking in the calcified ostial right coronary artery may be necessary using rotational atherectomy before stenting.

Use of a Longer Stent

Use a longer stent than you anticipate:

  1. It is often tempting to use a short 8 mm stent to cover such a short lesion. However, use of a longer stent will reduce the "rocking" of the stent that occurs during systole and diastole during stent deployment.
  2. It will also reduce the risk of "watermelon seeding".
  3. It increases the chances that sufficient stent is available to cover the aortic wall.

Editorial note: This guidance addresses intra-procedural stent stability and coverage. It should be balanced against contemporary imaging-based evidence, which emphasizes minimizing aortic stent protrusion—proximal geographic miss and excess aortic overhang are independent predictors of target lesion failure (TLF), and the current consensus target is ≤1 mm of protrusion into the aorta (see Precise Stent Positioning, below).[11][9]

Precise Stent Positioning — Avoiding Geographic Miss

Geographic miss is the dominant technical failure. Angiographic guidance alone misses the true ostium in roughly half of cases (54% in one series of 100 aorto-ostial PCIs), and geographic miss tripled TLR.[11][12] Distal miss leaves ostial disease uncovered; proximal miss leaves excess stent in the aorta, impairing re-engagement and increasing TLF.

Consensus target: the stent should protrude no more than ~1 mm (one stent ring) into the aorta.[2][13]

Techniques to achieve precision:

  • Two-hand / pull-back deployment – deploy in pull-back configuration (never push), with the guide freely floating and disengaged to prevent displacement; controlled breath-hold; multiple projections.[2][13]
  • Floating (WALPO) wire – a second wire in the aortic cusp marks the ostium and stabilizes the guide.[13][12]
  • Floating balloon technique – a 2.0–2.5 mm balloon inflated over the aortic wire against the aortic wall improves coaxiality and stability; the OSTIAL pilot study reported 83% technical success by post-PCI CT.[13][14]
  • Real-time/floating IVUS guidance – an IVUS catheter over an aortic (or side-branch) floating wire allows direct visualization of the aorto-ostial junction and stent edge before and during deployment.[15][12]
  • Guide-extension tip technique (OS-GET) – guide-extension tip seated just proximal to the ostium as a stable fluoroscopic landmark for the proximal stent marker.[16]
  • Post-deployment optimization – proximal-first POT/aortic flaring (flaring elongates the stent 1–3 mm, so account for this when judging protrusion). Dedicated flaring/re-engagement devices (e.g., Flash Ostial) can assist but do not replace lesion preparation.[13][2][3]

The Szabo (anchor-wire) technique and older dedicated devices (e.g., Ostial Pro) are described but limited by stent deformation, dislodgement, and questionable positioning accuracy on bench/imaging testing.[2][12]


Branch-Ostial Lesions (Ostial LAD and LCx)

For ostial LAD, IVUS commonly reveals plaque extending into the left main in the majority of angiographically "isolated" ostial LAD lesions. A 2025 systematic review/meta-analysis found crossover stenting (LM→LAD, jailing the LCx) associated with lower TLR and stent thrombosis than precise ostial stenting, with no significant difference in MACE, death, or MI.[17] Evidence on hard endpoints is inconsistent—a separate 2025 meta-analysis found no difference in MACE, death, or MI between strategies—but the large CROSS-ANATOLIA registry (n=1,167) identified accurate ostial stenting (HR 2.47) and absence of intravascular imaging (HR 1.45) as independent MACE predictors.[18][19]

Ostial LCx lesions are a particularly refractory subset: outcomes are poor regardless of very-ostial, crossover, or two-stent strategy (2-year MACCE ~25%, TVR ~20%), reflecting recoil, calcium, hinge motion, and shear rather than a fixable technical variable.[20] Ostial LCx in-stent restenosis also recurs more than non-LCx ISR (1-yr TLR-MACE 26.6% vs 18.4%).[21] For isolated LAD ostial disease, an IVUS-guided comparison of precise ostial, floating, and crossover single-stent techniques found crossover produced the largest ostial stent area and highest complete-coverage rate (100% vs ~24–40%) with the lowest 2-year MACCE, supporting crossover when it can be performed without compromising the LCx.[22]

Clinically Actionable Recommendations

  1. Confirm ostial significance with IVUS ± FFR before committing to PCI; keep the guide disengaged for FFR.[4][2][5]
  2. Prepare essentially all ostial lesions—scoring/cutting/NC balloon or IVL for crossable, rotational atherectomy (0.5 burr:artery) for uncrossable/heavily calcified.[1][5]
  3. Use new-generation DES; avoid BMS and early-generation DES.[7][9]
  4. Use a dedicated positioning technique (floating wire/balloon, floating IVUS, or guide-extension landmark) rather than angiography alone; aim for ≤1 mm aortic protrusion.[11][15][13][14]
  5. Perform post-stent IVUS to confirm expansion and complete ostial coverage; underexpansion and aortic overhang are independent predictors of TLF.[3][9]

Areas of Uncertainty

  • DES vs BMS on hard endpoints: no RCT has compared stent types in an ostial-only population; registry data conflict, with the NHLBI Dynamic Registry showing no overall repeat-revascularization benefit.[11][10]
  • Precise ostial vs crossover stenting for ostial LAD: meta-analyses agree on lower TLR and stent thrombosis with crossover but conflict on hard endpoints (MACE/death/MI), and no adequately powered RCT exists.[17][18]
  • Ostial LCx: genuine equipoise—no strategy clearly superior, prompting interest in drug-coated balloons.[20]
  • Orbital atherectomy at the ostium: feasible but carries a recognized aortic-dissection risk; use is expert opinion, not guideline-endorsed.[1]
  • IVUS on hard outcomes generally carries a Class 2a recommendation (2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI) and a Class I (LOE A) recommendation for left main/bifurcation/long lesions in the 2024 ESC guideline. Trial data are not uniform: while most RCTs and meta-analyses favor IVUS-guided complex PCI, the IVUS-CHIP trial (2,020 patients, published 2026) found no reduction in target-vessel failure with routine IVUS (13.9% vs 11.1%; HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97–1.60).[5][23][24]

High-Yield Clinical Pearls

  • Keep the guide disengaged and never inject through a damped pressure waveform—damping means the tip is against/into ostial plaque, and injection risks aortocoronary dissection.[2]
  • Account for POT/flaring elongation (1–3 mm): an initial 1–2 mm protrusion can become 2–4 mm; do proximal-first POT with a short balloon.[13]
  • Preload a wire at the guide tip so the vessel can be wired the instant the ostium is engaged.[2]
  • After aorto-ostial stenting, minimize aortic overhang to preserve future re-engagement; floating IVUS or a guide-extension landmark improves accuracy.[15][16]
  • Post-stent IVUS underexpansion and excess aortic protrusion are strong, modifiable predictors of failure—image before leaving the table.[9]

2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (DO NOT EDIT)[4]

Aorto-Ostial Stenoses (DO NOT EDIT)[4]

Class IIa
"1. IVUS is reasonable for the assessment of angiographically indeterminant left main CAD.[25][26] (Level of Evidence: B) "
"2. Use of DES is reasonable when PCI is indicated in patients with an aorto-ostial stenosis.[8][27] (Level of Evidence: B) "

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Riley RF, Patel MP, Abbott JD; et al. (2024). "SCAI Expert Consensus Statement on the Management of Calcified Coronary Lesions". J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 3 (2): 101259. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101259.
  2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 Alame A, Brilakis ES (2016). "Best practices for treating coronary ostial lesions". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 87 (2): 241–2. doi:10.1002/ccd.26421.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Nguyen-Trong PJ, Martinez Parachini JR, Resendes E; et al. (2016). "Procedural outcomes with use of the flash ostial system in aorto-coronary ostial lesions". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 88 (7): 1067–1074. doi:10.1002/ccd.26613.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, Chambers CE, Ellis SG, Guyton RA, Hollenberg SM, Khot UN, Lange RA, Mauri L, Mehran R, Moussa ID, Mukherjee D, Nallamothu BK, Ting HH (2011). "2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions" (PDF). Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 58 (24): 2550–83. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.006. PMID 22070837. Retrieved 2011-12-08. Text "PDF" ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S; et al. (2022). "2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization". J Am Coll Cardiol. 79 (2): e21–e129. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006.
  6. ↑ Lotfi A, Jeremias A, Fearon WF; et al. (2014). "Expert consensus statement on the use of fractional flow reserve, intravascular ultrasound, and optical coherence tomography". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 83 (4): 509–18. doi:10.1002/ccd.25222.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Al-Lamee R, Ielasi A, Latib A; et al. (2011). "Comparison of Long-Term Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes Following Implantation of Bare Metal Stents and Drug-Eluting Stents in Aorto-Ostial Lesions". Am J Cardiol. 108 (8): 1055–60. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.004.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Park DW, Hong MK, Suh IW, Hwang ES, Lee SW, Jeong YH, Kim YH, Lee CW, Kim JJ, Park SW, Park SJ (2007). "Results and predictors of angiographic restenosis and long-term adverse cardiac events after drug-eluting stent implantation for aorto-ostial coronary artery disease". The American Journal of Cardiology. 99 (6): 760–5. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.10.028. PMID 17350360. Retrieved 2011-12-15. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Mitomo S, Jabbour RJ, Watanabe Y; et al. (2018). "Comparison of Mid-Term Clinical Outcomes After Treatment of Ostial Right Coronary Artery Lesions With Early and New Generation Drug-Eluting Stents". Int J Cardiol. 254: 53–58. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.10.066.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Vasaiwala S, Vlachos H, Selzer F; et al. (2012). "Comparison of Bare-Metal Stents and Drug-Eluting Stents in Coronary Ostial Lesions (From the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry)". Am J Cardiol. 110 (8): 1113–8. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.05.051.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Patel Y, Depta JP, Patel JS; et al. (2016). "Impact of intravascular ultrasound on the long-term clinical outcomes in the treatment of coronary ostial lesions". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 87 (2): 232–40. doi:10.1002/ccd.25034.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Harding SA, Webber B, Fairley S, Ormiston JA (2022). "Real-time intravascular ultrasound guidance: A novel technique for accurate placement of ostial stents". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 99 (3): 699–705. doi:10.1002/ccd.29830.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 Leibundgut G, Bilal Iqbal M, Ungureanu C; et al. (2026). "Excessive Ostial Stent Protrusion: Evaluation of Management Strategies and Clinical Outcomes of the Side Flap Technique". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 107 (6): 1884–1898. doi:10.1002/ccd.70545.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Digne F, Darmon A, Belguidoum S, Nejjari M, Feignoux J (2025). "Optimizing Stent Placement in Ostial Coronary Lesions With the Floating Balloon Technique: The OSTIAL Pivotal Study". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 105 (5): 1269–1277. doi:10.1002/ccd.31449.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Leung C, Ho CB, Wong IMH; et al. (2024). "Floating IVUS Technique for Accurate Placement of Aorto-Ostial Stent". JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 17 (13): 1609–1611. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2024.05.024.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Kurimoto S, Kishi K (2026). "Novel Precise Ostial and Bifurcation Stenting Using a Guide Extension Catheter: The Ostial Stenting With Guide Extension Catheter Tip Technique". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 108 (2): 409–414. doi:10.1002/ccd.70666.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Desai P, Suffredini JM, Koh S; et al. (2025). "Optimal Stenting Technique for Lesions at the Ostium of the Left Anterior Descending Artery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 106 (2): 926–933. doi:10.1002/ccd.31635.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Khairy AM, Hafez AH, Elshahat A; et al. (2025). "Comparing Cross-Over Stenting and Focal Ostial Stenting for Ostial Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 25 (1): 131. doi:10.1186/s12872-024-04393-x. PMID 40000947 Check |pmid= value (help).
  19. ↑ Tanık VO, Güner A, Serin E; et al. (2025). "Ostial Stent Implantation or Crossover Stenting for Ostial LAD Lesions: The Multicenter CROSS-ANATOLIA Registry". Am J Cardiol. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2025.08.023. PMID 40846217 Check |pmid= value (help).
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Cozzi O, Maurina M, Cacia M; et al. (2023). "Clinical and procedural outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for de novo lesions involving the ostial left circumflex coronary artery". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 102 (6): 1048–1056. doi:10.1002/ccd.30903.
  21. ↑ Chezar-Azerrad C, Musallam A, Shea C; et al. (2021). "One-Year Outcomes After Treatment of Ostial in-Stent Restenosis in Left Circumflex Versus Left Anterior Descending or Right Coronary Artery". Am J Cardiol. 151: 45–50. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.03.045.
  22. ↑ Wu X, Wu M, Huang H; et al. (2025). "Reassessing Single-Stent Techniques for Isolated Left Anterior Descending Ostial Disease: A Two-Year Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Retrospective Comparison of Precise Ostial, Floating, and Crossover Stenting Strategies". BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 25 (1): 431. doi:10.1186/s12872-025-04894-3. PMID 40462008 Check |pmid= value (help).
  23. ↑ Vrints C, Andreotti F, Koskinas KC; et al. (2024). "2024 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Chronic Coronary Syndromes". Eur Heart J. 45 (36): 3415–3537. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae177.
  24. ↑ Diletti R, Daemen J, Faurie B; et al. (2026). "Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided or Angiography-Guided Complex High-Risk PCI". N Engl J Med. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2601521.
  25. ↑ Gil RJ, Gziut AI, Prati F, Witkowski A, Kubica J (2005). "Threshold parameters of left main coronary artery stem stenosis based on intracoronary ultrasound examination". Kardiologia Polska. 63 (3): 223–31, discussion 232–3. PMID 16180175. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  26. ↑ Sano K, Mintz GS, Carlier SG, de Ribamar Costa J, Qian J, Missel E, Shan S, Franklin-Bond T, Boland P, Weisz G, Moussa I, Dangas GD, Mehran R, Lansky AJ, Kreps EM, Collins MB, Stone GW, Leon MB, Moses JW (2007). "Assessing intermediate left main coronary lesions using intravascular ultrasound". American Heart Journal. 154 (5): 983–8. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2007.07.001. PMID 17967608. Retrieved 2011-12-15. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  27. ↑ Iakovou I, Ge L, Michev I, Sangiorgi GM, Montorfano M, Airoldi F, Chieffo A, Stankovic G, Vitrella G, Carlino M, Corvaja N, Briguori C, Colombo A (2004). "Clinical and angiographic outcome after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in aorto-ostial lesions". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 44 (5): 967–71. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.05.058. PMID 15337205. Retrieved 2011-12-15. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php?title=Coronary_ostial_stenosis&oldid=1745942"