AIMS: In Europe, no written official guidelines on indications for coronary stent placement are available. We therefore assessed the opinions of European interventional cardiologists on these indications. METHODS AND RESULTS: In April 1997, a questionnaire was sent to the members of the Working Group on Coronary Circulation of the European Society of Cardiology with interventional cardiology as the main activity. A total of 165 questionnaires were returned and analysed. For the treatment of acute or threatened vessel closure during PTCA, the threshold for stenting is set at the level of a type C dissection by 42% of the cardiologists, while 22% stent any form of dissection and 13% require an impaired TIMI flow. A suboptimal PTCA result necessitating stenting is defined as a residual stenosis of >50% by 35% or of 30 >30% by 55% of the respondents. When considering primary prevention of restenosis, only 2% unconditionally stent focal, new-onset lesions in native coronary arteries, 44% refrain from stenting in a case of a stent-like PTCA result (</=30% residual stenosis) and 73% think that stent types other than the Palmaz-Schatz may be implanted for this indication. Restenotic lesions are unconditionally stented by 30% of the interventionists while 64% reserve this option only for suboptimal PTCA results. Amongst the other indications, stenting is considered to be the treatment of choice as follows: chronic total occlusion, 85%; saphenous vein graft lesions, 59%; aorto-coronary ostial lesions, 64%; and primary intervention for myocardial infarction: 59%. CONCLUSION: European interventional cardiologists have integrated current literature on stenting into their daily practice. The most cited indications (threatened vessel closure and suboptimal PTCA results) are not supported by randomized trials. The variations in the conclusions from randomized trials may be explained by the general expectation that stenting will improve PTCA results.