Direct stenting for STEMI: does it really make a difference?

Direct Stenting versus Conventional Stenting in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction-A COMPARE CRUSH Sub-Study

BACKGROUND

Direct stenting (DS) compared with conventional stenting (CS) after balloon predilatation may reduce distal embolization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thereby improving tissue reperfusion. In contrast, DS may increase the risk of stent underexpansion and target lesion failure.

METHODS

In this sub-study of the randomized COMPARE CRUSH trial (NCT03296540), we reviewed the efficacy of DS versus CS in a cohort of contemporary, pretreated ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary PCI. We compared DS versus CS, assessing (1) stent diameter in the culprit lesion, (2) thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow in the infarct-related artery post-PCI and complete ST-segment resolution (STR) one-hour post-PCI, and (3) target lesion failure at one year. For proportional variables, propensity score weighting was applied to account for potential treatment selection bias.

RESULTS

This prespecified sub-study included 446 patients, of whom 189 (42%) were treated with DS. Stent diameters were comparable between groups (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.5 mm, p = 0.17). Post-PCI TIMI 3 flow and complete STR post-PCI rates were similar between groups (DS 93% vs. CS 90%, adjusted OR 1.16 [95% CI, 0.56-2.39], p = 0.69, and DS 72% vs. CS 58%, adjusted OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.77-2.16], p = 0.34, respectively). Moreover, target lesion failure rates at one year were comparable (DS 2% vs. 1%, adjusted OR 2.93 [95% CI 0.52-16.49], p = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

In this contemporary pretreated STEMI cohort, we found no difference in early myocardial reperfusion outcomes between DS and CS. Moreover, DS seemed comparable to CS in terms of stent diameter and one-year vessel patency.

Impact of direct stenting on clinical outcomes for small vessel coronary artery disease in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Introduction

Direct stenting (DS) is associated with improved markers of reperfusion during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, data evaluating its impact in small vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) are lacking.

Aim

To compare DS and conventional stenting (CS) for small vessel CAD on clinical outcomes of patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI.

Material and methods

A cohort of 616 STEMI patients treated with DS (202 patients) or CS (414 patients) in small vessel (≤ 2.75 mm) lesions was retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was to compare the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between groups during 2-year follow-up. The secondary end points included in-hospital target lesion revascularization (TLR) and in-hospital death.

Results

The primary end-point, MACEs, occurred in 9.2% in the DS group and 12.3% in the CS group (p > 0.05). The rates of TLR, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05). The stent thrombosis (ST) rate was significantly lower in the DS group (1.0% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.04) at 2 years. However, DS was not found to be an independent predictor of ST in multivariate analysis. There were no significant differences in in-hospital rates of death and TLR. The DS compared to CS resulted in greater rates of postprocedural TIMI grade 3 flow, and lower risk of edge dissection. The procedure time, radiation exposure and contrast administration were found to be significantly lower in the DS group.

Conclusions

In selected patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI for small vessel CAD, DS is not only safe and feasible but also reduces ST rates, contrast load, and procedural and radiation exposure time.

Deflated Balloon-Facilitated Direct Stenting in Primary Angioplasty (The DBDS Technique): A Pilot Study

Background

Several studies and meta-analyses have shown that direct stenting (DS) may improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). But in most cases, the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow remains ≤ 1 after wire placement. We used deflated balloon to facilitate DS in patients with totally occluded culprit arteries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and outcomes of this novel technique in patients with STEMI in real-world clinical practice.

Methods

This was a prospective, observational, single-center pilot study. From September 2016 to June 2018, 454 patients were enrolled in the study. DS was performed when the culprit vessel was visualized with at least TIMI flow grade 1. Patients with complete occlusion of the vessel after wire placement were subjected to deflated balloon-facilitated DS technique (DBDS technique) and DS was done wherever possible.

Results

DS was done in 74% (n = 336) of the patients and 26% (n = 118) patients received stenting after pre-dilatation (PD). DBDS technique to facilitate DS was successful in 68% patients (211/309). Final TIMI 3 flow was achieved more frequently in the DS group as compared to PD group (96.7% versus 92.3%, P = 0.04). The procedural complications were also significantly lower in DS group (0.6% versus 7.6%, P < 0.001). DS group had significantly lower procedure time (33 ± 19 min versus 41 ± 17 min, P < 0.001), fluoroscopy time (6.2 ± 3.4 min versus 7.8 ± 32 min, P < 0.001), required lesser contrast volume (112 ± 16 mL versus 123 ± 18 mL, P < 0.001) and had lower procedural cost (310 ± 45$ versus 402 ± 56$, P < 0.001). ST-segment resolution > 50% after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were significantly higher in the DS group (85.7% versus 71.1%, P < 0.001). At 30 days, the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was significantly lower in the DS group (2.4% versus 9.3%, P = 0.02), mainly driven by lower rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (0.9% versus 4.2%, P = 0.01).

Conclusion

This cost-effective technique appears to be simple, feasible and safe and is associated with superior clinical outcomes. It helps in maximizing DS and could offer an alternative to PD and aspiration thrombectomy in total occlusion. However, larger studies with longer follow up are required before a wider application of this technique.