Having the dubious benefit of stants being emplaced inside my stents, a
little thought has been called for.

Considering stents only
===============

The insult to vessel walls that invokes the scar tissue filling of a stent
would seem to be proportional to the stretching the stent forces on the
vessel wall.

We note that a stent inflated to only 80% of whatever the standard expansion
might be in the situation expands to a circumferance Pi*.8 as great as for
full expansion.

But the stent expansion and insult cannot be considered in isiolation of the
host site's characteristics.

Considering the vessel's 'natural' diameter.
============================

Consider, though, a vessel diameter, before, clogging of one unit diameter,
and an intent to inflate to some given degree, such that the standard intent
would be to expand the walls to, say, 1.6 diameters, forcing Pi*1.6 - Pi
insult to the walls, for a net stretch of Pi*.6.

The 80% inflation of intended per first example would expand the vessel to
only 1.28 diameters but the net insult would be only Pi*.28, for a relative
.28/.6 = .47 as much insult, and perhaps a proportional reduction in
scar-engendered clogging, and retaining, perhaps, a relief of symptoms.

--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
eleaticus@bellsouth.net