Why the study?
Does direct coronary stenting without balloon or device pretreatment improve acute success and long-term MACE compared to secondary stenting in eligible patients?
Does direct coronary stenting without balloon or device pretreatment improve acute success and long-term MACE compared to secondary stenting in eligible patients?
Direct coronary stenting without pretreatment is safe and effective, yielding similar 6-month MACE rates as secondary stenting while potentially offering procedural advantages.
May support direct stenting in selected lesions; leaves open need for randomized trials to confirm any advantage.
Improvements in coronary stents have made planned direct coronary stenting technically feasible, though safety, acute success, cost-effectiveness, and long-term results remain to be determined. Sequential patients eligible for direct stenting were prospectively characterized and treated with either direct or secondary stenting. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) such as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel ischemia, or revascularization (TVR) were followed for 6 months post-PCI. Enrollment included 128 direct (1.38 lesions/patient) and 69 secondary (1.39 lesions/patient) stented patients. Direct stenting was successful in 99% (with 5% crossover to secondary stenting) without major procedural complications and with a similar rate of vessel wall dissection or no-reflow phenomenon (2.3% vs. 2.1%; P > 0.05) as the secondary stenting group. There was a trend toward less postprocedural CPK-MB elevation in the nonacute MI patients with direct vs. secondary stenting (3% vs. 11%, respectively). At 6 months, there were no statistically significant differences in overall MACE. Direct stenting has a high success rate, low complication rate, and durable long-term results. Procedural cost and time savings, less contrast use and radiation exposure make direct stenting attractive in properly selected patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Styŝ et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: