BACKGROUND: Direct stenting is the deployment of an intracoronary stent without lesion predilation. Potential advantages include shorter procedural time, lower contrast dose and reduced spiral dissections. There is also the potential financial benefit of less balloon and/or stent usage. Concern still exists among some operators, however, regarding failure of stent deployment and local complications. METHODS: Of 467 consecutive angioplasty cases at the Alfred Hospital between August 1, 1997 and May 22, 1998, direct stenting was attempted in 93 patients (20%). Interventionalist preference determined whether direct stenting was attempted. Vessels with excessive calcification, severe proximal tortuosity or small caliber were typically considered unsuitable for direct stenting. RESULTS: A total of 102 lesions (38 type A, 60 type B, and 4 type C) were treated with direct stenting. Initial deployment was successful in 98 of 102 lesions, with a further 3 lesions successfully stented following predilation. A stent was unable to be deployed in only 1 case; however, the lesion was treated with balloon angioplasty alone. The majority of lesions required only 1 stent (an average of 1.1 stents were used per lesion). Distal complications occurred in 5 patients. In 3 patients, a small distal dissection was successfully stented, and in 1 case embolization of debris occurred down the distal vessel, resulting in a small procedural myocardial infarction. Only 1 patient out of 93 (1%) developed a large distal dissection requiring the deployment of multiple stents, compared with 22 of the remaining 374 patients (5.9%) who underwent conventional angioplasty. This was a significant difference in favor of direct stenting (Chi-square, p < 0.05). When compared with a cohort of patients matched by lesion grade treated with conventional stenting, direct stenting used significantly less contrast per case (154 +/- 7.6 ml compared with 202 +/- 9.5 ml for conventional stenting; p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Direct stenting is a safe and effective method for treating coronary artery disease. In appropriately selected cases, it has a low rate of procedural failure and results in less contrast usage and fewer distal complications than conventional angioplasty and stenting.
BACKGROUND: Direct stenting is the deployment of an intracoronary stent without lesion predilation. Potential advantages include shorter procedural time, lower contrast dose and reduced spiral dissections. There is also the potential financial benefit of less balloon and/or stent usage. Concern still exists among some operators, however, regarding failure of stent deployment and local complications. METHODS: Of 467 consecutive angioplasty cases at the Alfred Hospital between August 1, 1997 and May 22, 1998, direct stenting was attempted in 93 patients (20%). Interventionalist preference determined whether direct stenting was attempted. Vessels with excessive calcification, severe proximal tortuosity or small caliber were typically considered unsuitable for direct stenting. RESULTS: A total of 102 lesions (38 type A, 60 type B, and 4 type C) were treated with direct stenting. Initial deployment was successful in 98 of 102 lesions, with a further 3 lesions successfully stented following predilation. A stent was unable to be deployed in only 1 case; however, the lesion was treated with balloon angioplasty alone. The majority of lesions required only 1 stent (an average of 1.1 stents were used per lesion). Distal complications occurred in 5 patients. In 3 patients, a small distal dissection was successfully stented, and in 1 case embolization of debris occurred down the distal vessel, resulting in a small procedural myocardial infarction. Only 1 patient out of 93 (1%) developed a large distal dissection requiring the deployment of multiple stents, compared with 22 of the remaining 374 patients (5.9%) who underwent conventional angioplasty. This was a significant difference in favor of direct stenting (Chi-square, p < 0.05). When compared with a cohort of patients matched by lesion grade treated with conventional stenting, direct stenting used significantly less contrast per case (154 +/- 7.6 ml compared with 202 +/- 9.5 ml for conventional stenting; p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Direct stenting is a safe and effective method for treating coronary artery disease. In appropriately selected cases, it has a low rate of procedural failure and results in less contrast usage and fewer distal complications than conventional angioplasty and stenting.
Authors: Elad I Levy; Jay U Howington; Johnathan A Engh; Ricardo A Hanel; Naveh Levy; Stanley H Kim; Kevin J Gibbons; Lee R Guterman; L Nelson Hopkins Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2005 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: A IJsselmuiden; P W Serruys; G J Tangelder; T Slagboom; R van der Wieken; F Kiemeneij; G J Laarman Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Jacques Boschat; Hervé Le Breton; P Commeau; Bernard Huret; Marc Bedossa; Martine Gilard Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: M Alidoosti; M Salarifar; S E Kassaian; A M Zeinali; M S Fathollahi; M R Dehkordi Journal: Cardiovasc J Afr Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.167