Key result
Direct stenting is linked to ~18 mL lower contrast volume vs. predilatation in simple lesions.
Why the study?
The optimal stent deployment strategy for low-complexity Type A and B1 coronary lesions remains poorly defined.
Does direct stenting improve procedural efficiency compared to predilatation in adults undergoing elective PCI for low-complexity Type A and B1 coronary lesions?
Cohort (n=324)
No
Does direct stenting improve procedural efficiency compared to predilatation in adults undergoing elective PCI for low-complexity Type A and B1 coronary lesions?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In low-complexity Type A and B1 coronary lesions, direct stenting improves procedural efficiency by reducing contrast volume and radiation exposure without prolonging procedure time.
Background/Objectives: The optimal stent deployment strategy for low-complexity Type A and B1 coronary lesions remains poorly defined. We compared direct stenting (DS) and predilatation followed by stenting (PS) in elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for these lesions. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study included adults undergoing elective PCI with drug-eluting stents for ACC/AHA Type A or B1 lesions between June 2020 and December 2025. Procedure duration, cumulative contrast volume, and cumulative reference air kerma were compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for within-patient clustering, adjusted for clinical, lesion-related, procedural, and operator-related factors. Results: In total, 324 patients contributed 334 PCI observations (PS: 239; DS: 95). After adjustment, DS was associated with lower contrast volume (−18.12 mL; 95% CI −28.08 to −8.17; p < 0.001) and lower cumulative reference air kerma (−223.54 mGy; 95% CI −259.98 to −187.11; p < 0.001), whereas procedure duration did not differ significantly (−0.92 min; 95% CI −4.56 to 2.71; p = 0.619). Findings were consistent when restricted to the first PCI per patient. Conclusions: In these lesions, DS was associated with lower contrast volume and cumulative reference air kerma, without a significant adjusted difference in procedure duration. As nonrandomized observations, these findings do not establish equivalence in clinical safety or effectiveness, nor do they demonstrate cost-effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çapar et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in ACC/AHA Type A and B1 coronary lesions (n=324). Direct stenting vs. Predilatation followed by stenting was evaluated on Cumulative contrast volume (MD -18.12, 95% CI -28.08 to -8.17, p=<0.001). Direct stenting was associated with significantly lower contrast volume (MD -18.12 mL; 95% CI -28.08 to -8.17; p<0.001) and air kerma compared to predilatation in Type A and B1 lesions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: