Comparison of intracoronary ultrasound expansion parameters in coronary stents implanted with or without balloon predilatation. A randomized intravascular ultrasound study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronary stenting without balloon predilatation is a safe technique associated with similar clinical results and lower costs, use of contrast and exposure to radiation in comparison to stenting with predilatation. After direct stenting, expansion may be reduced if the stenotic lesion was not predilatated. This study compared a). stent expansion with and without balloon predilatation (direct stenting), observed by intracoronary ultrasound, and b). angiographic results after 6 months and 1 year with the two implantation techniques. PATIENTS AND METHOD: 100 consecutive lesions eligible for direct stenting were randomized to stent implantation with or without balloon predilatation. Only 相似文献   

Short- and long-term clinical outcome after various stent implantation: overview of the results of uni- and multicenter stent registries.

The present study reports the results of the short- and long-term outcomes of prospective uni- and multicenter stent registries: Palmaz-Schatz (n = 140 patients), Ave-Micro and GFX (n = 280), Multilink Duet (n = 340), Multilink Tetra (n = 192), and Carbo (n = 140) Stent Registries, as well as the predictors and angiographic cutoff points predicting major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after different stent implantations. Significant decrease in subacute stent thrombosis (from 2.9% to 0) and MACE (from 35% to 8.3%) occurred as the improved stents, optimized stent implantation technique, and new postintervention drug therapy were introduced. The changes of angiographic cutoff values (postintervention minimal lumen diameter and preintervention reference diameter: from 2.9 and 3.1 mm for Palmaz-Schatz to 2.5 and 2.8 mm for Multilink Duet, Multilink Tetra, and Carbo stents) and clinical and angiographic factors predicting MACE indicated the change of traditional restenosis paradigm and that progress in clinical practice might be able to counterbalance unfavorable lesion and intervention-related characteristics.     

Direct Stenting with TAXUS Stents Seems to be as Safe and Effective as with Predilatation

BACKGROUND AND METHOD: Although direct coronary stenting does not improve angiographic outcome, it makes sense by reducing procedure times, radiation exposure and costs. Other potential advantages of direct stenting may be a reduction of myocardial ischemia time, which could be clinically relevant in high-risk patients. With the introduction of drug-eluting stents, however, concern arose that direct stenting would possibly damage the polymer coating and change or diminish the efficacy of the programmed drug release. Also, concerns about safety by preventing optimal apposition of single stent struts developed. It is the purpose of this paper to retrospectively analyze the data from the TAXUS-II Trial (536 patients) regarding patients with and without direct stenting. While predilatation was recommended per protocol, direct stenting was not forbidden: thus, direct stenting was performed in 49 patients (TAXUS n = 23, control n = 26). RESULTS: In the TAXUS groups, there was no significant difference regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE; 7.5% vs. 4.3%), angiographic restenosis in the analysis segment (4.8% vs. 4.3%), late loss (0.28 +/- 0.36 vs. 0.33 +/- 0.30 mm) or intravascular ultrasound-(IVUS-)measured volume obstruction (7.95 +/- 9.84% vs. 5.61 +/- 7.91%) at six months between the predilated and directly stented patients. The same was true for the patients receiving the control stent. Compared with the directly stented control group, the statistically significant positive effects of TAXUS direct stenting were maintained, regarding angiographic restenosis in the analysis segment (4.3% vs. 30.8%), late loss (0.33 +/- 0.30 vs. 0.80 +/- 0.62 mm) or IVUS-measured volume obstruction (5.61 +/- 7.91% vs. 22.50 +/- 21.62%) at six months. MACE was reduced from 19.2% to 4.3%; due to the small number of patients this trend did not reach statistical significance. After predilatation, all parameters were significantly improved by the TAXUS stent. CONCLUSION: Comparison of patients receiving TAXUS stents with or without predilatation revealed no differences in clinical, angiographic or IVUS parameters at six months. This suggests that direct stenting with the polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent is feasible, safe and equally effective. Randomized trials comparing stenting after predilatation versus direct stenting with drug-eluting stents are warranted.     

Expansion of the Multilink-Tristar stent after direct implantation and predilatation: comparison of clinical,angiography and intravascular ultrasound parameters

Coronary stenting has become the primary therapeutic option for many coronary lesions. As opposed to conventional stenting the advantages of direct stenting are a reduction of procedural time, radiation exposure and costs. However, data about the incidence of in-stent restenosis are so far not available. It was the aim of this prospective study to compare the expansion of the Multilink stent after direct stenting and predilatation by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Between January 2000 and June 2001, 82 patients were assigned to direct stenting (46 lesions) or predilatation (40 lesions) in lesions of coronary arteries > 3 mm. The procedural success rate was 92% in patients undergoing direct stenting. The baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. The comparison of the angiographic data shows that direct stenting was performed in lesions with a lower degree of stenosis (71 +/- 12% vs 79 +/- 11%, p = 0.01) and that significantly shorter stents were used (14.4 +/- 3.0 vs 17.8 +/- 4.1 mm, p = 0.0007). The mean stenosis length was not significantly different in either group (10.5 +/- 3.4 vs 11.7 +/- 4.3 mm, n.s.). The QCA data after stent implantation show no differences of either implantation technique. Stent expansion was assessed by IVUS estimation of the proximal, distal and minimal in stent area. The minimal in-stent area (9.53 +/- 3.23, mm2 vs 8.65 +/- 1.96 mm2, n.s.) and the stent symmetry index (0.88 vs 0.88 n.s.) were not different in either patient group. These results indicate that in this subset of selected coronary lesions > 3 mm, elective stent implantation with and without predilatation effectively can achieve comparable stent expansion as assessed by QCA and IVUS. In comparison to conventional stent implantation stents, which were implanted without predilatation, were significantly shorter to cover the same lesion length.     

The SIRIUS-DIRECT trial: a multi-center study of direct stenting using the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of direct stenting using the sirolimus-eluting BX Velocitytrade mark stent in patients with coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: Although direct coronary stenting has become a widespread practice, there have been no systematic assessments of direct stenting with drug-eluting stents. METHODS: Total of 225 patients with identical inclusion and exclusion criteria as the original SIRIUS trial were enrolled in this prospective single-arm study. They were compared in a no-inferiority design with 412 similar patients from the SIRIUS trial who had sirolimus-eluting stents deployed after predilatation and were preassigned to angiographic follow-up evaluation. RESULTS: Direct stenting was successful in 85.8% of the patients. Compared with the predilatation group, direct stenting was associated with shorter median procedure duration (33 min vs. 45 min, P < 0.001). Angiographic follow-up at 8 months revealed similar late loss (in-stent-0.19 +/- 0.47 mm vs. 0.17 +/- 0.44 mm, and in-lesion-0.23 +/- 0.41 mm vs. 0.24 +/- 0.47 mm) and similar frequency of binary restenosis (in-stent-4.6% vs. 3.2% and in-lesion-6.1% vs. 8.9%) between the two treatment strategies. However, stent-edge restenosis was lower with direct stenting than in the predilatation control group (2.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.02). At 12-months, there were no significant differences in target lesion revascularization (3.7% vs. 5.1%, P = ns) or composite major adverse cardiac events (7.0% vs. 8.3%, P = ns). CONCLUSIONS: In patients similar to those treated in the SIRIUS trial, direct stenting using sirolimus-eluting stents achieves excellent short- and long-term clinical and angiographic results with shorter procedure time and less frequent stent edge restenosis compared with predilation stent implantation techniques.     

Comparison of PRE-dilatation vs direct stenting in coronary treatment using the Medtronic AVE S670 Coronary Stent System (the PREDICT trial).

Current stent delivery systems make primary stenting (stent placement without predilatation) possible, but few controlled trials have been performed to evaluate the success, safety, cost saving, and potential benefit of this approach in reducing late restenosis. The Comparison of PRE-Dilatation Versus Direct Stenting In Coronary Treatment using the Medtronic AVE S670 Coronary Stent System trial was a 399-patient study comparing results with the Medtronic-AVE S670 stent to objective performance criteria based on prior approved stents, with subrandomization to direct stenting versus stenting after balloon predilatation. Overall, results with the S670 stent showed excellent success and safety, with delivery success of 99%, a 14-day adverse event rate of 6.8% (including 6.5% non–Q-wave myocardial infarction), and favorable angiographic (20%) and clinical (12%) restenosis rates. Direct stenting was successful in 92% of cases, with a 99.5% secondary success rate including additional pretreatment of initially unsuccessful direct-stenting attempts, and no increase in complications. There were modest (10%) savings in fluoroscopy time, contrast use, and a decrease in angioplasty balloon use (0.6 vs 1.3 balloons/case), but no reduction in clinical or angiographic restenosis. Patients treated later in the study, with a device that had less balloon extension beyond the edges of the stent, had slightly lower angiographic restenosis rates (19% vs 23%). In conclusion, the S670 stent showed excellent overall performance. Although direct stenting was safe and highly successful, it offered only modest cost savings, and no reduction in late restenosis compared with stenting after predilatation.     

Directional atherectomy before stenting versus stenting alone in percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis

Plaque debulking before stenting is still controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of 12 randomized and non-randomized trials comparing directional coronary atherectomy (DCA) before stenting versus stenting alone. Angiographic end points were acute gain, late loss and angiographic restenosis rate. Clinical end points were early major adverse cardiac events [MACEs: death, Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), non-Q-wave MI], late MACEs (death, Q-wave MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Data are expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI, as appropriate. A total of 1216 patients undergoing DCA before stent and 1484 patients undergoing stent alone have been included. DCA before stent was associated to a better acute gain compared to stenting alone (WMD 0.23, [0.18-0.28]; p<0.0001), to a striking reduction of angiographic restenosis rate (OR of 0.67, [0.54-0.84], p=0.0003) and to a significantly lower rate of late TLR (OR 0.73 [0.59-0.91], p=0.006). Late loss did not differ between the two groups (WMD 0.00 [-0.08 and 0.08], p=0.98). We found a higher rate of early MACEs for the combined approach (OR 1.87 [1.16-3.02], p=0.01), with similar prevalence of late MACEs (OR 0.83 [0.65-1.06], p=0.13). In conclusion, this meta-analysis demonstrates that DCA before stenting is superior to stenting alone with regard to acute angiographic results and TLR with a similar prevalence of late MACEs. The higher prevalence of early MACEs with DCA before stenting, however, is disturbing and probably related to distal embolization.     

Technique of left main stenting is dependent on lesion location and distal branch protection.

The purpose of this study was to review our experience with left main stenting and evaluate initial results with drug-eluting stents (DESs). Drug-eluting stents delivered with contemporary techniques could change the traditional surgical approach to patients with significant left main disease. One hundred sixty-one patients underwent left main stenting (100 bare metal, 61 drug-eluting) after being excluded from surgery. In group A, disease was confined to the ostium or main stem; in group B, disease involved the bifurcation. Patients were classified as either unprotected (U) or protected (P) depending on the presence of a patent bypass graft. Study endpoints were any major adverse cardiac event (MACE). In-hospital MACE was 6% with no deaths; 74% of patients in group A underwent direct stenting, whereas 89% of the patients in group B had predilatation performed prior to stent implantation. A total of 98% of patients in BU had kissing balloon inflations after stent deployment; provisional side-branch stenting was required in one patient. V-stenting was performed in 13% of patients in group BU. The 1-year mortality in the bare metal stent group was 9% with the majority of deaths in group BU. There was one noncardiac death in the DES group at 6 months and five patients (8.2%) underwent target vessel revascularization for restenosis. Event-free survival at 6 months in group BU treated with DESs was 87%. Significant left main disease presents a spectrum of angiographic abnormalities and different interventional techniques are required depending on lesion location and distal protection. Although in-hospital complications with left main stenting were low in this single-center study, follow-up events were common in patients treated with bare metal stents. A randomized multicenter trial will be required to determine whether drug-eluting stents will improve survival in patients with left main disease.     

Impact of sirolimus-eluting and Paclitaxel-eluting stents on outcome in patients with diabetes mellitus and stenting in more than one coronary artery

Randomized trials have shown that implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) compared with bare metal stents. We compared the impact of SESs and PESs on clinical outcome in medically treated diabetic patients with multivessel stents. In this study, the in-hospital and 9-month clinical outcomes of 260 consecutive diabetic patients who underwent implantation of SESs (147 patients) or PESs (113 patients) were compared. MACEs were defined as death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization. The baseline demographic and angiographic characteristics were well matched. An average of 3.0 +/- 1.3 versus 2.8 +/- 1.2 lesions were treated in the SES and PES groups, respectively (p = 0.34), with a mean stented length per patient of 73 +/- 43 versus 61 +/- 36 mm (p = 0.08). No significant difference was observed between the SES and PES groups for in-hospital (6.1% vs 3.5%, p = 0.34) or 9-month MACE (24.5% vs 19.5%, p = 0.34) rates or for subacute (1.4% vs 0.9%, p = 0.72) or late (0.7% vs 0.9%, p = 0.85) stent thrombosis. Insulin-requiring diabetic patients treated with SESs and PESs also had similar demographic and angiographic characteristics and rates of in-hospital (4.7% vs 7.7%, p = 0.57) and 9-month (28.0% vs 38.4%, p = 0.44) MACEs. Insulin-dependent diabetes was the only independent predictor of MACEs (odds ratio 2.68, 95% confidence interval 1.46 to 4.89, p = 0.001). In conclusion, our results demonstrated a relatively high incidence of MACEs in a diabetic population with multivessel disease, despite treatment with drug-eluting stents. In addition, we could not find any clear advantage of 1 type of stent versus the other.     

Comparison of PRE-dilatation vs Direct stenting In Coronary Treatment using the Medtronic AVE S670 Coronary Stent System (the PREDICT trial)

Current stent delivery systems make primary stenting (stent placement without predilatation) possible, but few controlled trials have been performed to evaluate the success, safety, cost saving, and potential benefit of this approach in reducing late restenosis. The Comparison of PRE-Dilatation Versus Direct Stenting In Coronary Treatment using the Medtronic AVE S670 Coronary Stent System trial was a 399-patient study comparing results with the Medtronic-AVE S670 stent to objective performance criteria based on prior approved stents, with subrandomization to direct stenting versus stenting after balloon predilatation. Overall, results with the S670 stent showed excellent success and safety, with delivery success of 99%, a 14-day adverse event rate of 6.8% (including 6.5% non–Q-wave myocardial infarction), and favorable angiographic (20%) and clinical (12%) restenosis rates. Direct stenting was successful in 92% of cases, with a 99.5% secondary success rate including additional pretreatment of initially unsuccessful direct-stenting attempts, and no increase in complications. There were modest (10%) savings in fluoroscopy time, contrast use, and a decrease in angioplasty balloon use (0.6 vs 1.3 balloons/case), but no reduction in clinical or angiographic restenosis. Patients treated later in the study, with a device that had less balloon extension beyond the edges of the stent, had slightly lower angiographic restenosis rates (19% vs 23%). In conclusion, the S670 stent showed excellent overall performance. Although direct stenting was safe and highly successful, it offered only modest cost savings, and no reduction in late restenosis compared with stenting after predilatation.     

冠状动脉内直接支架置入治疗急性冠状动脉综合征--与传统支架置入方法的随机对比研究

目的 :采用与传统支架置入术 (CS)随机对比研究的方法 ,评价冠状动脉 (冠脉 )内直接支架置入术 (DS)治疗急性冠脉综合征相关病变的可行性和安全性。　　方法 :将 15 0例急性冠脉综合征患者随机分为DS组和CS组 ,两组的基本临床特征和造影特征及术前治疗无显著差异。实验第一终点是影像学的成功 :支架置入后靶病变残余狭窄 <2 0 % ,心肌梗死溶栓治疗临床试验 (TIMI) 3级血流 ,“无再流或慢血流现象”的减少 ;第二终点为严重并发症发生率和手术操作时间及花费的评价。　　结果 :DS组和CS组组间手术成功率无差异 (DS组为 94 7% ,CS组为 96 0 % )。无再流或慢血流现象发生率DS组为 5例 (6 7% ) ,CS组为 4例 (5 3 % ) ,两组间亦无差异 (P =NS)。手术时间、球囊导管及造影剂用量DS组均低于CS组 ,两组比较有极显著差异 (P <0 0 1)。住院期间效果及严重并发症两组间无差异 ;6个月随访结果两组比较亦无显著性差异。　　结论 :本随机研究证实了一些回顾性研究的结果 ,DS治疗急性冠脉综合征的相关病变具有可行性和安全性 ,与CS相比较 ,这一策略的突出优点是显著增加效益费用比 ,而对急性并发症特别是“无再流或慢血流”现象的发生无影响。     

Multicenter randomized comparison of direct vs. conventional stenting: the DIRECTO trial.

With conventional stenting, predilatation frequently induces dissections that require deploying stents longer than originally planned. To assess whether direct stenting is safe and may prevent dissections and reduce the length of stents implanted, we conducted a randomized study comparing direct (n = 73) and conventional (n = 78) stenting. Direct stenting was successful in 89% of cases, 11% crossed over to predilation without complications. Dissections occurred more frequently in conventional stenting group (10.3% vs. 1.4%; P = 0.034), but did not translate to a significant stent length difference (16.31 +/- 7.6 vs. 15.31 +/- 5.5; P = NS). Periprocedure creatine kinase elevation and number of balloons utilized were lower with direct stenting.     

Sirolimus-versus paclitaxel-eluting stents: a comparison of two consecutive series in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND: We compared two consecutive series of patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-five patients with 590 coronary lesions were treated with 274 SES and 379 PES. Patients with symptoms or positive dobutamine stress echocardiography were subjected to repeat coronary angiography. RESULTS: During a follow-up of 13.3 +/- 5.7 months, the incidence rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 4.1%, including, 1 death, 4 Q-wave myocardial infarctions, 2 late angiographic stent thromboses, 3 subacute stent thromboses, and 11 target vessel revascularizations (TVR), and was not significantly different between SES (n = 5) and PES (n = 7).Stent overlapping was found to be an independent predictor of both MACE (odds ratio = 0.078, P = 0.02) and TVR (odds ratio = 0.077, P = 0.02). Follow-up symptoms- or ischemia-driven angiography was performed in 45 patients. Only vessel size was a predictor of stent restenosis (P = 0.02), independent of stent type. Late loss was independently predicted by postdilatation of stent (beta =-0.24, P = 0.03), but not by type of stent (P = 0.14) or other parameters. Edge restenosis was seen in 8 patients subjected to lesion predilatation. The restenosis pattern after SES implantation was focal, but diffuse (n = 1) or proliferative (n = 1) restenosis, and in-stent aneurysm formation (n = 1) was also seen with PES. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a trend for a higher incidence of MACE with PES, no significant differences between the two stent types were detected. Diffuse restenosis was seen only with PES, and edge restenosis only in lesions with balloon predilatation before stent implantation. Stent overlapping was an independent predictor of both TVR and MACE.     

Direct coronary stent implantation does not reduce the incidence of in-stent restenosis or major adverse cardiac events: six month results of a randomized trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term angiographic, clinical and economic outcome of direct stenting vs stenting after balloon predilatation. PATIENT POPULATION AND METHODS: Four hundred patients with coronary stenoses in a single native vessel were randomized to direct stenting vs stenting after predilatation. A major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE) was defined as death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target restenosis, repeat target- and non-target vessel-related percutaneous coronary intervention, target lesion revascularization, coronary artery bypass surgery and stroke. RESULTS: Stents were successfully implanted in 98.3% of patients randomized to direct stenting vs 97.8% randomized to stenting preceded by predilatation. The primary success rate of direct stenting was 88.3%, vs 97.8% for stenting preceded by balloon dilatation (P=0.01). The angiographic follow-up at 6 months included 333 of the 400 patients (83%). The binary in-stent restenosis rate was 23.1% of 163 patients randomized to direct stenting vs 18.8% of 166 patients randomized to balloon predilatation (P=0.32). By 185+/-25 days, MACCE had occurred in 31 of 200 (15.5%) patients randomized to direct stenting, vs 33 of 200 (16.5%) randomized to predilatation (P=0.89). At 6 months, costs associated with the direct stenting strategy (Euros 3222/patient) were similar to those associated with predilatation (Euros 3428/patient, P=0.43). However, procedural costs were significantly lower. It is noteworthy that, on multivariate analysis, a baseline C-reactive protein level >10 mg l(-1)was a predictor of restenosis (odds ratio: 2.10, P=0.025) as well as of MACCE (odds ratio: 1.94, P=0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to stenting preceded by balloon predilatation, direct stenting was associated with similar 6-month restenosis and MACCE rates. Procedural, but not overall 6-month costs, were reduced by direct stenting. An increased baseline CRP level was an independent predictor of adverse long-term outcome after coronary stent implantation.     

A randomized comparison of direct stenting versus stenting with predilatation in native coronary artery disease: results from the multicentric Crosscut study

Stenting without predilatation has become possible due to the availability of a new generation of flexible, low-profile, securely crimped, balloon-expandable stents. This study compared the feasibility, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of direct stenting (DS) to the standard predilatation technique (PS) using the premounted Crossflex LC stent (Cordis Corporation, Miami Lakes, Florida). The study is a randomized prospective multicenter evaluation including 271 patients (140 patients in the DS group and 131 patients in the PS group) with 1 or 2 de novo or restenotic lesions located in native coronary arteries. Procedural success was 98.9% and 98.7% in the DS and PS groups, respectively (p = NS); crossover to PS was required in 22/166 lesions (13.2%) enrolled in the DS group because of inability to cross the target lesion without predilatation. Nonsignificant reductions in procedural time (-10.5%), fluoroscopy time (-4.7%) and amount of contrast (-3.8%) were observed in the DS group in comparison to the PS group. The number of balloons used (-76.6%) and the global cost of the procedure (-18.8%) were significantly lower in the DS group (p < 0.01 for both comparisons). After 6 months, no differences were observed in the restenosis rate between the two groups (22.0% for DS group versus 18.1% for PS group; p = NS) and in the incidence of major adverse clinical events (5.0% for DS group versus 3.0% for PS group; p = NS). Direct stenting is safe and feasible for the treatment of lesions in native coronary arteries and obtains a significant reduction in procedural cost, mainly due to the lower number of balloons used. Clinical and angiographic results at 6 months are comparable to those obtained after a conventional predilatation-stenting strategy.     

Angiographic and clinical outcome following coronary stenting of small vessels: A comparison with coronary stenting of large vessels

Objectives. Stent implantation reduces restenosis in vessels ≥3 mm compared with balloon angioplasty, but few data are available for stents implanted in vessels <3 mm. The aim of this study was to evaluate immediate and follow-up patient outcomes after stent implantation in vessels <3 mm compared to stent implantation in vessels ≥3 mm.Methods. Between March 1993 and May 1996, a total of 1,298 consecutive patients (1,673 lesions) underwent coronary stenting. The study population was divided into two groups based on angiographic vessel diameter. In case of multivessel stenting, patients were randomly assigned only one lesion. Group I included 696 patients (696 lesions) in whom stents were implanted in vessels ≥3 mm, and group II included 602 patients (602 lesions) in whom stents were implanted in vessels <3 mm.Results. There was no difference in procedural success (95.4% in group I and 95.9% in group II), or subsequent subacute stent thrombosis (1.5% in group I and 1.4% in group II, p = NS). The postprocedure residual diameter stenosis was 3.31 ± 12.4% in group I and −2.45 ± 16.2% in group II. Angiographic follow-up was performed in 75% of patients, restenosis occurred in 19.9% of patients in group I and 32.6% in group II (p <0.0001). Absolute lumen gain was significantly higher in group I compared to group II, but absolute late lumen loss was similar in the two groups (1.05 ± 0.91 mm in group I vs. 1.11 ± 0.85 mm in group II, p = NS). Subsequently, the loss index was more favorable in group I (0.45 vs. 0.56; p = 0.0006). Independent predictors of freedom from restenosis by multivariate logistic regression in the total population were: larger baseline reference diameter (odds ratio 2.032 p = 0.006), larger postprocedure minimal stent cross-sectional area (odds ratio 1.190, p = 0.0001) and shorter lesions (odds ratio 1.037, p = 0.01). At long-term clinical follow-up, patients with small vessels had a lower rate of event-free survival (63% vs. 71.3%, p = 0.007).Conclusions. Coronary stenting can be performed in small vessels with a high success rate and low incidence of stent thrombosis. However, the long-term angiographic and clinical outcome of patients undergoing stent implantation in small vessels is less favorable than that of patients with large vessels.     

Is Direct Stent Implantation Without Predilatation Safe? Acute and Long‐Term Outcome

Direct stenting could potentially lead to a reduction in dissections, time, and restenosis at 6-month follow-up. Using the premounted Palmaz-Schatz Crown stent elective stenting was performed without predilatation in 61 consecutive patients who were compared with a control group of provisional stenting. All patients underwent clinical and angiographic follow-up at 6 months. Direct stenting was successful in 81% of patients. In 16% of the patients predilatation was needed. In 3% the stent could not be implanted despite predilatation. Stent dislodgment occurred in 2% of patients, without embolization. Six-month angiographic follow-up was performed in 51 (84%) of 61 patients. In the direct stenting group the mean preprocedural minimal luminal diameter (MLD) increased from 0.96 +/- 0.47 to 3.09 +/- 0.54 mm directly after the procedure. At 6-month follow-up the MLD measured 2.32 +/- 0.79 mm. In the provisional stenting group the mean MLD increased from 0.92 +/- 0.51 to 2.44 +/- 0.58 mm and was 1.84 +/- 0.70 mm at 6-month follow-up. Restenosis, defined as a diameter stenosis > 50%, occurred in 8% of the direct stenting group compared with 28% in the provisional stenting group (P < 0.001). Direct coronary stent implantation can be attempted safely and efficaciously. The risk of stent loss is low. The initial and long-term angiographic results are significantly better as compared with provisional stenting. The risk of restenosis is significantly lower.     

直接冠状动脉支架置入术的临床应用及影响因素

目的 探讨选择性直接冠状动脉支架置入术应用的可行性及影响因素。方法 对237例直接支架置入术患的病变特点及临床预后了分析,并与367例预扩张后支架置入术患进行了比较。结果 对筛选的254例患尝试直接支架置入术,237例（93．4％）获成功,其中A型病变52．7％,B1型病变40．1％,17例（6．7％）直接支架置入术失败,其中血管内超声肯定的钙化病变7例,斑块纤维化4例,血管严重成角6例（血管多个弯曲＞45度）。结论 对有经验的心脏介入医生筛选的病变,并避开钙化病变,严重成角血管和长病变,可考虑行直接冠状动脉动脉支架置入术。     

Direct stent implantation in acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of direct stenting and to compare it with conventional implantation techniques in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: A total of 145 patients were divided into two arms based on the stenting technique used: group I (n = 71) = direct stenting without predilatation group that included only single-vessel procedures and group II (n = 74) = stenting with predilatation group that included only single-vessel conventional stent implantations. The primary endpoint of the study was the major adverse clinical event (MACE) rate in-hospital, at 1 month, and at 6 months and the secondary endpoint was the balloon inflation time (BIT), the number of balloon inflations (NBI), the radiation exposure time (RET), the amount of contrast dye used (ACD) and the no-reflow phenomenon. RESULTS: Primary success rate was 89% in group I and 95% in group II; overall procedural success rate was 94% in group I and 100% in group II. The rate of MACE was not different during the follow-up period between the two groups. The RET, BIT and NBI were significantly lower in group I than in group II (p < 0.001 for all). The ACD used was also significantly lower in group I than in group II (125 60 ml versus 155 71 ml; p = 0.006). Furthermore, the rate of no-reflow was significantly lower in group I than in group II (2.8% versus 13.5%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Direct stenting is a feasible and safe technique. It is equivalent to single-vessel conventional stent implantation techniques with respect to MACE rate in-hospital, at 1 month, and at 6 month follow-up in selected patients with ACS.     

Comparable clinical outcomes with paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents in unrestricted contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in a contemporaneous cohort of real-world patients. BACKGROUND: A number of randomized comparisons of PES and SES have shown unequivocal advantages for SES in angiographic end points such as late loss. However, the data on clinical outcomes are less consistent. METHODS: All consecutive patients successfully treated with only SES or PES in de novo native vessel lesions between March 2003 and March 2005 were analyzed. Our end points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). We also analyzed late loss and angiographic restenosis. RESULTS: There were 609 patients (1,064 lesions) treated with PES and 674 patients (1,205 lesions) treated with SES. Diabetes mellitus was present in 26.8% of patients and multivessel disease in 75% of patients. Bifurcations made up 16.3% of lesions, chronic occlusions 9.5%, left main 4.8%, and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology type B2/C 75.4%. Despite a higher late loss in the PES group (p = 0.0001), there were no differences in angiographic restenosis (PES 18% vs. SES 17.8%, p = 0.95), TLR (PES 11.9% vs. SES 11%, p = 0.47), or MACE (PES 21.3% vs. SES 21.1%, p = 0.95). The relative risk of MACE for the PES group was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 1.33). Multivariable analysis confirmed the lack of association of stent type with MACE (odds ratio 1.03 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.38], p = 0.83) and TLR (odds ratio 1.08 [95% CI 0.81 to 1.44], p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In this complex cohort, both stent platforms demonstrated similar clinical outcomes despite different late loss.