+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Comparison of the efficacy of direct coronary stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents versus stenting with predilation by intravascular ultrasound imaging (from the DIRECT trial)

Comparison of the efficacy of direct coronary stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents versus stenting with predilation by intravascular ultrasound imaging (from the DIRECT trial)

American Journal of Cardiology 98(11): 1464-1467

A direct coronary stenting technique using drug-eluting stents may decrease drug-eluting stent efficacy due to possible damage to the surface coating of the stent. The DIRECT is a multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized trial designed to evaluate the direct. stenting strategy for the sirolimus-eluting Bx-Velocity stent compared with the historical control (SIRIUS trial, stenting with predilation). Volumetric and cross-sectional intravascular ultrasound analyses at 8-month follow-up were performed in 115 patients (DIRECT n= 64, control n = 51). Patient and lesion characteristics were comparable between groups. The DIRECT group achieved an equivalent uniform expansion index, defined as minimum stent area/maximum stent area X 100, compared with the control group (65.9 +/- 11.7 vs 63.1 +/- 12.7, p = NS). At 8-month follow-up, vessel, stent, lumen, and neointimal volume index (volume in cubic millimeters/length in millimeters) and percent neointimal volume were similar between the DIRECT and control groups (vessel volume index 13.9 +/- 4.40 vs 15.0 +/- 3.83; stent volume index 6.83 +/- 2.02 vs 6.94 +/- 2.04; lumen volume index 6.71 +/- 2.04 vs 6.81 +/- 2.07; neointimal volume index 0.14 +/- 0.24 vs 0.16 +/- 0.23; percent neointimal volume 3.73 +/- 6.97 vs 3.14 +/- 5.32, p = NS for all). In addition, in-stent neointimal hyperplasia distribution was significantly smaller near the distal stent edge (0.22 vs 0.098 mm 3/MM, P = 0.01 for an average neointimal volume index within 3 mm from the distal stent edge). In conclusion, direct coronary stenting with the sirolimus-eluting Bx-Velocity stent is equally effective in terms of uniform stent expansion and long-term quantitative intravascular ultrasound results compared with conventional stenting using predilation. This strategy appears to be associated with less neointimal hyperplasia near the distal stent edge.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 012955834

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 17126651

DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.06.046

Related references

Nonrandomized comparison of coronary stenting under intravascular ultrasound guidance of direct stenting without predilation versus conventional predilation with a semi-compliant balloon versus predilation with a new scoring balloon. American Journal of Cardiology 100(5): 812-817, 2007

Comparison of luminal enlargement by direct coronary stenting versus predilation coronary stenting by three-dimensional volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis. American Journal of Cardiology 88(10): 1179-1182, November 15, 2001

Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: Restenosis after direct stenting versus stenting with predilation in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease (ISAR-DIRECT trial). Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 61(2): 190-195, 2004

Angiographic and volumetric intravascular ultrasound comparison between direct sirolimus-eluting stent implantation versus predilation. American Journal of Cardiology 93(12): 1522-1525, 2004

Comparison of clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound parameters after direct stenting versus predilation. American Journal of Cardiology 91(3): 337-340, 2003

Polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting versus new generation zotarolimus-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting versus Zotarolimus-eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST 5) trial. Circulation 124(5): 624-632, 2012

Matched comparison of direct stenting to predilation with the Sirolimus-eluting Bx VelocityTM stent. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 43(5 Supplement A): 97A, March 3, 2004

Direct stenting versus direct stenting followed by centered beta-radiation with intravascular ultrasound-guided dosimetry and long-term anti-platelet treatment: results of a randomized trial: Beta-Radiation Investigation with Direct Stenting and Galileo in Europe (BRIDGE). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 44(3): 528-537, 2004

Randomized trial of paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of coronary restenosis in sirolimus-eluting stents: the ISAR-DESIRE 2 (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2) study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 55(24): 2710-2716, 2010

Comparison of direct stenting versus stenting with predilation for the treatment of selected coronary narrowings. American Journal of Cardiology 89(2): 115-120, January 15, 2002

Direct coronary stenting versus stenting with predilation Immediate results of a multicentre, prospective, randomized study The DISCO trial. European Heart Journal 21(Abstract Supplement): 263, August-September, 2000

Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results Restenosis after DIRECT stenting versus stenting with predilation trial. Circulation 106(19 Supplement): II 391, November 5, 2002

The sirolimus-eluting coronary stent in clinical practice: impact of direct stenting versus stenting with balloon pre-dilatation. Eurointervention 2(4): 459-466, 2007

Comparison of Everolimus- versus Sirolimus-eluting stents in the provisional Bifurcation stenting guided by intravascular ultrasound: mid-term results of the J-REVERSE registry. Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics 31(1): 1-12, 2016

Everolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the EXCELLENT (Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher to Reduce Late Loss After Stenting) randomized trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 58(18): 1844-1854, 2011