Clinical, Angiographic, and Procedural Factors Presumably Related to Persistent Success After Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty

Ever since the use of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) was introduced to achieve coronary revascularization, comparison of its results with those of CABG has been of major concern to everybody. Morbidity [4, 6, 7], cost [2, 3, 10], return to work [9], etc. have all been analyzed, yet much remains to be said about lasting effects of successful PTCA. Why do some cases restenose? Are there some factors that one could relate to persistent success? Are such factors of clinical or angiographic nature? Could they simply be related to the technique?