Key result
Planned Palmaz-Schatz stenting is linked to ~9% higher procedural success versus unplanned stenting.
Why the study?
Other clinical indications for Palmaz-Schatz stent use such as unplanned use, vein grafts, and restenosis lesions were not addressed in prior randomized trials.
What are the acute and long-term outcomes of Palmaz-Schatz stenting for unplanned indications, saphenous vein grafts, and restenosis lesions?
Cohort (n=628)
What are the acute and long-term outcomes of Palmaz-Schatz stenting for unplanned indications, saphenous vein grafts, and restenosis lesions?
Palmaz-Schatz stenting for unplanned indications is associated with lower procedural success and higher early complication rates compared to planned stenting, though overall lesion success remains high.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Unplanned Palmaz-Schatz stenting was associated with lower success and higher complications; leaves open whether modern stents alter bailout outcomes.
The randomized Stent Restenosis Study (STRESS) and Belgium Netherlands Stent (Benestent) trials established that elective use of Palmaz-Schatz stents (PSSs) in native coronary arteries with de novo lesions is associated with increased procedural success and reduced restenosis. However there are other clinical indications for which stents are commonly used (unplanned use, vein grafts, restenosis lesions) that are not addressed in these studies. From 1990-1992, 688 lesions in 628 patients were treated with PSSs in the New Approaches to Coronary Intervention (NACI) registry. Angiographic core laboratory readings were available for 543 patients (595 lesions, of which 106 were stented for unplanned indications, 239 were in saphenous vein bypass grafts, and 296 were previously treated). The cohort of patients in whom stents were placed for unplanned indications had more women, current smokers, and had a higher incidence of recent myocardial infarction (MI). Patients who underwent stenting of saphenous vein grafts were older, had a higher incidence of diabetes mellitus, unstable angina, prior MI, and congestive heart failure. Lesion success was similar in all cohorts (98%), but procedural success was significantly higher for planned stenting (96% vs 87%; p < 0.01). Predictors of adverse events in-hospital were presence of a significant left main stenosis and stenting for unplanned indication. The incidence of target lesion revascularization by 30 days was significantly higher for patients undergoing unplanned stenting due to a higher risk for stent thrombosis. Recent MI, stenting in native lesion, and small postprocedural minimum lumen diameter independently predicted target lesion revascularization at 30 days. Independent predictors of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 1 year included severe concomitant disease, high risk for surgery, left main disease, stenting in the left main coronary artery, and low postprocedure minimum lumen diameter.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carrozza et al. (1997) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery lesions requiring stenting (n=628). Planned stenting vs. Unplanned stenting was evaluated on Procedural success (p=< 0.01). Planned Palmaz-Schatz stenting resulted in significantly higher procedural success compared to unplanned stenting (96% vs 87%; p < 0.01) in the NACI registry.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: