BACKGROUND: The role of coronary stents in reducing the incidence of acute complications and late restenosis after angioplasty has been established in randomized studies focusing on simple, short coronary lesions. The development of long coronary stents has provided a safe and predictable means of treating long coronary lesions, but this carries with it a higher risk of restenosis. By comparing the outcome of treating long lesions with two different stent types, we aimed to assess the influence of stent design rather than the nature of long lesions per se on the relatively high restenosis rates in this subgroup. METHODS: This study was designed to assess procedural complications and 6-month restenosis rates in a randomized trial comparing a slotted tube stent with a self-expanding stent for the treatment of long coronary lesions. Randomization of vessels to either stent occurred after successful balloon angioplasty. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was used to assess and optimize stent deployment. The patients were restudied angiographically and by IVUS at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients (85 vessels) were recruited (slotted tube stent, n = 44 vessels; self-expanding stent, n = 41 vessels). Successful deployment occurred in 41 (100%) of 41 of the self-expanding stent group and 41 (93%) of 44 of the slotted tube stent group. There was no difference in lesion length between the two groups (slotted tube stent, 26.6 +/- 6.9 [SD] mm; self-expanding stent, 28.7 +/- 9.8 [SD] mm; P = .2), but the mean length of the self-expanding stent was greater than that of the slotted tube stent (41.6 +/- 18.8 [SD] mm vs 35.4 +/- 16.2 [SD] mm, respectively; P < .05). There was no significant difference in the rate of major events between the two groups at 6-month follow-up. The angiographic restenosis rate at follow-up was less in the slotted tube stent group, but this did not reach statistical significance (26% vs 46%, respectively; P = .1) and the target lesion revascularization rate was similar for both groups (7.9% vs 7.7%, respectively; P = .8). IVUS assessment of plaque/stent ratios suggested a greater plaque burden in the self-expanding stent compared with the slotted tube stent at follow-up (0.42 +/- 1.2 [SD] vs 0.3 +/- 0.08 [SD]), but this was not statistically significant (P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: Long stents can be safely and successfully deployed in long segment coronary disease, with an acceptable 6-month target lesion revascularization rate. Our results showed a trend toward lower angiographic restenosis and a lesser in-stent plaque burden at follow-up in the slotted tube stent compared with the self-expanding stent. This suggests that stent design may influence the restenotic process in long coronary lesions.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The role of coronary stents in reducing the incidence of acute complications and late restenosis after angioplasty has been established in randomized studies focusing on simple, short coronary lesions. The development of long coronary stents has provided a safe and predictable means of treating long coronary lesions, but this carries with it a higher risk of restenosis. By comparing the outcome of treating long lesions with two different stent types, we aimed to assess the influence of stent design rather than the nature of long lesions per se on the relatively high restenosis rates in this subgroup. METHODS: This study was designed to assess procedural complications and 6-month restenosis rates in a randomized trial comparing a slotted tube stent with a self-expanding stent for the treatment of long coronary lesions. Randomization of vessels to either stent occurred after successful balloon angioplasty. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was used to assess and optimize stent deployment. The patients were restudied angiographically and by IVUS at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients (85 vessels) were recruited (slotted tube stent, n = 44 vessels; self-expanding stent, n = 41 vessels). Successful deployment occurred in 41 (100%) of 41 of the self-expanding stent group and 41 (93%) of 44 of the slotted tube stent group. There was no difference in lesion length between the two groups (slotted tube stent, 26.6 +/- 6.9 [SD] mm; self-expanding stent, 28.7 +/- 9.8 [SD] mm; P = .2), but the mean length of the self-expanding stent was greater than that of the slotted tube stent (41.6 +/- 18.8 [SD] mm vs 35.4 +/- 16.2 [SD] mm, respectively; P < .05). There was no significant difference in the rate of major events between the two groups at 6-month follow-up. The angiographic restenosis rate at follow-up was less in the slotted tube stent group, but this did not reach statistical significance (26% vs 46%, respectively; P = .1) and the target lesion revascularization rate was similar for both groups (7.9% vs 7.7%, respectively; P = .8). IVUS assessment of plaque/stent ratios suggested a greater plaque burden in the self-expanding stent compared with the slotted tube stent at follow-up (0.42 +/- 1.2 [SD] vs 0.3 +/- 0.08 [SD]), but this was not statistically significant (P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: Long stents can be safely and successfully deployed in long segment coronary disease, with an acceptable 6-month target lesion revascularization rate. Our results showed a trend toward lower angiographic restenosis and a lesser in-stent plaque burden at follow-up in the slotted tube stent compared with the self-expanding stent. This suggests that stent design may influence the restenotic process in long coronary lesions.