Randomized comparison of direct stenting with predilatation followed by stenting on vessel trauma and restenosis

Comparing Direct Stenting With Conventional Stenting in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes

Our aim was to compare direct stenting (DS) with conventional stenting (CS) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and ISI web of science for eligible studies. Primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in short term. Secondary end points were 1-year mortality and after-procedural no-reflow phenomenon. Twelve trials in 8998 patients were included. The odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model. Short-term MACEs were significantly reduced in the DS arm in contrast to the CS (5.00% vs 8.08%, DS vs CS, respectively, OR [95% confidence interval] = 0.61 [0.46-0.80], P = .0004). One-year mortality and after-procedural no-reflow phenomenon were significantly lower in the DS group. No heterogeneity was observed through I2 test ( Phet = .81, .89, and .77 for each end point, respectively). This meta-analysis demonstrated that in selected patients with ACS, DS is not only safe and feasible but also reduces short-term and 1-year mortality as well as the occurrence of after-procedural no-reflow phenomenon.

The independent value of a direct stenting strategy on early and late clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with direct stenting (DS) to balloon predilatation (PD) for patients undergoing elective PCI to determine whether there is an independent value for DS with regard to clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND

The safety of PCI with DS has been established, but the independent advantages of this technique are not entirely clear.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective PCI from January 2000 to December 2010 were included. The postprocedural and late clinical outcomes of 444 patients who underwent PCI with DS were compared with a propensity-matched population of 444 subjects treated with PD.

RESULTS

The two groups were well matched to 27 baseline clinical, procedural, and angiographic characteristics, thus allowing for a more accurate evaluation of the independent value of the stenting technique. Intravascular ultrasound was used in more than 60% of interventions in both groups. PCI performed with PD were longer (DS 45 ± 19.28 vs. PD 56 ± 23.72 minutes, P = 0.001), used more contrast (DS 154 ± 65.88 vs. PD 186 ± 92.84 cc, P = 0.001), and more frequently used balloon postdilation (DS 0% vs. PD 27.3%, P = 0.001). The incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PPMI) was similar between DS- and PD patients (5.3% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.91). Likewise, the 1-year rates of major adverse cardiac events (8.4% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.25), target lesion revascularization (3.9% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.24), and definite stent thrombosis (0.2% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.37) were similar among DS and PD patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

During elective PCI, DS decreases overall procedure time and resource utilization, but fails to reveal an independent clinical advantage as there is no demonstrable benefit in regard to the incidence of PPMI, restenosis, or overall clinical outcomes up to 1-year of follow-up.

Peri-procedural myocardial injury: 2005 update

During the past three decades, percutaneous coronary intervention has become one of the cardinal treatment strategies for stenotic coronary artery disease. Technical advances, including the introduction of new devices such as stents, have expanded the interventional capabilities of balloon angioplasty. At the same time, there has been a decline in the rate of major adverse cardiac events, including Q-wave acute myocardial infarction, emergency coronary artery bypass grafting, and cardiac death. Despite these advances, the incidence of post-procedural cardiac marker elevation has not substantially decreased since the first serial assessment 20 years ago. As of now, these post-procedural cardiac marker elevations are considered to represent peri-procedural myocardial injury (PMI) with worse long-term outcome potential. Recent progress has been made for the identification of two main PMI patterns, one near the intervention site (proximal type, PMI type I) and one in the distal perfusion territory of the treated coronary artery (distal type, PMI type II) as well as for preventive strategies. Integrating these new developments into the wealth of clinical information on this topic, this review aims at giving a current perspective on the entity of PMI.