| Literature DB >> 10931603 |
J A Ormiston1, M W Webster, P N Ruygrok, J M Elliott, M B Simmonds, I T Meredith, G P Devlin, J T Stewart, S R Dixon, S Price, C J Ellis, T M West.
Abstract
This randomized trial compared a strategy of direct stenting without predilatation (n = 39) with conventional stenting with predilatation (n = 42) in patients with suitable lesions in native vessels > or = 2. 5-mm diameter to be covered by either a 9- or 16-mm-length NIR Primo stent. Equipment cost [mean (median) +/- SD] was less in those with direct stenting [$1,199 (979) +/- 526] than in those with predilatation [$1,455 (1,285) +/- 401, P < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in contrast use or fluoroscopy time. Procedural time was shorter in the direct stenting group. The clinical outcome at 1 month was satisfactory in both groups. In selected patients, a strategy of direct stenting is feasible, costs less, and is quicker to perform than the conventional strategy of stenting following predilatation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2000 PMID: 10931603 DOI: 10.1002/1522-726x(200008)50:4<377::aid-ccd1>3.0.co;2-i
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv ISSN: 1522-1946 Impact factor: 2.692