Key result
Routine deferred stenting fails to reduce final infarct size versus immediate stenting in STEMI.
Why the study?
Although some studies suggested improved coronary flow and myocardial salvage with deferred stenting, clinical trial data showed no clinical benefit, prompting evaluation of its effect on infarct size, myocardial salvage, and microvascular obstruction.
RCT (n=510)
Should not change practice to routine deferred stenting in STEMI; leaves open selective use pending randomized confirmation.
Background Although some studies found improved coronary flow and myocardial salvage when stent implantation was deferred, the DANAMI-3–DEFER (Third DANish Study of Optimal Acute Treatment of Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction) did not show any improvement in clinical outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and deferred stenting. Objectives This study sought to evaluate the effect of deferred stent implantation on infarct size, myocardial salvage, and microvascular obstruction (MVO) in patients with STEMI. Methods In the present DANAMI-3 substudy, a total of 510 patients with STEMI were randomized to PCI with deferred versus immediate stent implantation. The patients underwent a cardiac magnetic resonance examination before discharge after the index procedure and again 3 months later. The primary endpoint was final infarct size. Results Deferred stenting did not reduce final infarct size (9% left ventricle [LV]; interquartile range [IQR]: 3% to 18% vs. 10% LV; IQR: 3% to 18%; p = 0.67). Similarly, deferred stenting was not associated with myocardial salvage index (66%; IQR: 50% to 89% vs. 67%; IQR: 49% to 88%; p = 0.80) or presence of MVO (43% vs. 42%; p = 0.78). In a post hoc analysis, stent length was the only subgroup of 7 that had an effect on outcome. In patients with a stent length ≥24 mm, deferred stenting reduced the final infarct size (6% LV; IQR: 2% to 18% vs. 13% LV; IQR: 7% to 23%; p = 0.006; and p for interaction = 0.005). Conclusions In the DANAMI-3–DEFER cardiac magnetic resonance substudy, routine deferred stenting did not reduce infarct size or MVO and did not increase myocardial salvage. These results do not support the use of routine deferred stenting in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI. (DANish Study of Optimal Acute Treatment of Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction [DANAMI-3]; NCT01435408)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lønborg et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=510). Deferred stent implantation vs. Immediate stent implantation was evaluated on final infarct size (p=0.67). Routine deferred stenting did not reduce final infarct size compared to immediate stenting in patients with STEMI (9% vs. 10% LV; p=0.67).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: