+ 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 outcomes (early and six- month) of direct stenting with conventional stenting (a meta-analysis of ten randomized trials)

Comparison of outcomes (early and six- month) of direct stenting with conventional stenting (a meta-analysis of ten randomized trials)

American Journal of Cardiology 91(7): 790-796

Although direct stenting (DS) is increasingly used in clinical practice instead of stent implantation after predilatation (conventional stenting [CS]), its impact has not been scientifically proved. We therefore performed, using Mantel-Haenszel analysis, a meta-analysis of the published randomized studies comparing DS with CS. Furthermore, all the key procedural data were systematically sought out and pooled. Ten trials (2,650 coronary lesions, 2,576 patients) were identified and entered into the analysis. Adopted angiographic exclusion criteria were homogeneous. DS, compared with CS, was found to have a similar success rate (98.7% vs 98.9%) and no specific complications. Across the studies, the mean rate of crossover to predilatation in the DS arm was 5.9%. Overall, DS was associated with a 17% procedural time (95% confidence interval [CI] 14% to 20%), a 18% fluoroscopic time (95% CI 15% to 21%), a 11% contrast volume (95% CI 9% to 14%), and a 22% cost reduction (95% CI 16% to 28%). In the early postintervention period, DS was associated with a trend toward reduction of each of the major adverse events (MACEs) and with a significant reduction of myocardial infarction (MI) + death (odds ratio [OR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.95). However, at 6 months, the OR (95% CI) for death, MI, target lesion revascularization, and MACEs were 0.47 (0.19 to 1.27), 0.72 (0.45 to 1.25), 1.07 (0.77 to 1.46), and 0.82 (0.63 to 1.08), respectively. In the subgroup of studies providing quantitative angiographic data, all the parameters were found to be similar between the CS and DS groups. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis shows that DS compared with CS, in selected coronary lesions, is safe, optimizes equipment use, and may enhance the early results of coronary interventions while warranting similar late clinical outcomes.

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

Accession: 048604640

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 12667562

DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(03)00009-2

Related references

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Conventional Stenting Versus Direct Stenting in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 27(9): 405-409, 2015

Comparing Direct Stenting With Conventional Stenting in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Meta-Analysis of 12 Clinical Trials. Angiology 67(4): 317-325, 2016

Direct drug-eluting stenting to reduce stent restenosis: a randomized comparison of direct stent implantation to conventional stenting with pre-dilation or provisional stenting in elective PCI patients. Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 7(7): 751-758, 2015

Comparison of outcomes of direct stenting with conventional stenting. American Journal of Cardiology 91(7): 790-796, April 1, 2003

Is direct stenting superior to stenting with predilation in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention? Results from a meta-analysis of 24 randomised controlled trials. Heart 96(8): 588-594, 2010

Intracoronary ultrasound-guided stenting improves outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia 98(1): 35-44, 2012

Six-month results of stenting following cutting balloon angioplasty in small coronary arteries A randomized comparison with stenting following conventional balloon angioplasty. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 39(5 Supplement A): 52A, March 6, 2002

Direct stenting without balloon predilation compared with conventional stenting in patients with acute myocardial infarction A multicenter randomized trial. Circulation 104(17 Supplement): II 622, October 23, 2001

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Long-Term Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 8(6 Suppl 3): S99-108, 2016

Angiographic, intravascular ultrasound, and fractional flow reserve evaluation of direct stenting vs. conventional stenting using BeStent2 in a multicentre randomized trial. European Heart Journal 26(18): 1852-1859, 2005

Clinical outcomes of primary stenting versus balloon angioplasty in patients with myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Medicine 116(4): 253-262, 2004

Direct coronary stenting versus stenting with balloon pre-dilation: incidence of enzyme release and follow-up results of a multicentre, prospective, randomized study. The CK and Troponin I Estimation in direct STenting (CK TEST) trial. Minerva Cardioangiologica 55(3): 281-289, 2007

Randomized comparison of direct stenting with predilatation followed by stenting on vessel trauma and restenosis. American Heart Journal 147(4): E13-E13, 2004

Randomized comparison of direct stenting and stenting after balloon predilation in acute myocardial infarction. European Heart Journal 24(Abstract Supplement): 84, August-September, 2003

Direct stenting versus stenting with predilation in saphenous vein grafts Early and late clinical outcomes. European Heart Journal 22(Abstract Supplement): 349, September, 2001