Why the study?
Does multiple stent deployment during a single PTCA procedure result in safe clinical outcomes in patients requiring coronary stenting?
Does multiple stent deployment during a single PTCA procedure result in safe clinical outcomes in patients requiring coronary stenting?
Deploying multiple stents during a single PTCA procedure is feasible and yields a total event rate of 19.2%, which is comparable to historical single-stent trials.
Supports multiple stenting in single PTCA as feasible; leaves open need for randomized confirmation versus single-stent strategies.
Objective: To determine the early and late clinical outcomes following multiple stent deployment during a single percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) procedure. Methods: All patients who received two or more stents during a single PTCA were reviewed. An analysis was made of 114 patients (mean age = 61.2 years). A total of 268 stents were deployed, range 2–6 stents per PTCA (mean = 2.4). Stenting was performed as a primary procedure in 38 patients, for arterial dissection in 44, and for threatened closure in 32. At least two stents were deployed in the same vessel in 101 (88.6%) patients. Before discharge from hospital, there were 4 (3.6%) deaths, 6 (5.2%) patients required emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and 2 (1.8%) patients required repeat PTCA. Three (2.6%) patients sustained acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The mean follow‐up period was 10.6 months. After leaving hospital, there were no deaths, 5 (4.4%) patients required CABG, and 5 (4.4%) had a further PTCA. There was one (0.9%) AMI. The total event rate was 19.2%, which compares well with single stent trials in which event rates of 20.1% and 19.5% were reached. In addition, 19 (16.7%) patients had a recurrence of symptoms. Conclusion: It is possible to deploy multiple stents at a single intervention in the same or different vessels safely and with clinical outcomes that are similar to those in studies of single coronary stenting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Varnava et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: