U Dietz1, N Holz, C Dauer, H Lambertz. 1. Deutsche Klinik für Diagnostik, Wiesbaden, Germany. dietz.kardio@dkd-wiesbaden.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of reducing stent length on the rate of target lesion restenosis. DESIGN: In a prospective investigation, acute and long term results of a short stenting procedure were analysed by quantitative angiography and compared with results of a conventional stenting procedure selected according to a matched pairs analysis. PATIENTS: Short stents were implanted in 400 consecutive patients with 464 lesions and conventional stents in 430 patients. Demographic and lesion characteristics were comparable between groups. INTERVENTIONS: In short stenting, the shortest stent length to cover only segments with > 30% reduction in vessel diameter was used. In conventional stenting, full coverage of a stenotic vessel segment was intended. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean stent lengths of the short stent group (9.8 (4) mm) and the conventional stent group (16.3 (7) mm) differed significantly (p < 0.0001); all other procedural and angiographic parameters were the same. Procedural success was similar for both groups. Control angiography after six months was conducted in 92% of patients. RESULTS: Short stenting resulted in both less restenosis (68 of 431 (15.8%)) than conventional stenting (93 of 381 (24.4%), p = 0.007) and less late lumen loss (0.6 (0.6) mm v 0.75 (0.5) mm, p = 0.0001). Residual stenosis (< 45%) in adjacent vessel segments after short stenting did not affect the restenosis rate. Only the implantation of a < or = 9 mm stent predicted the absence of restenosis in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Shortening the length of bare metal stents reduces the restenosis rate as compared with conventional stenting.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of reducing stent length on the rate of target lesion restenosis. DESIGN: In a prospective investigation, acute and long term results of a short stenting procedure were analysed by quantitative angiography and compared with results of a conventional stenting procedure selected according to a matched pairs analysis. PATIENTS: Short stents were implanted in 400 consecutive patients with 464 lesions and conventional stents in 430 patients. Demographic and lesion characteristics were comparable between groups. INTERVENTIONS: In short stenting, the shortest stent length to cover only segments with > 30% reduction in vessel diameter was used. In conventional stenting, full coverage of a stenotic vessel segment was intended. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean stent lengths of the short stent group (9.8 (4) mm) and the conventional stent group (16.3 (7) mm) differed significantly (p < 0.0001); all other procedural and angiographic parameters were the same. Procedural success was similar for both groups. Control angiography after six months was conducted in 92% of patients. RESULTS: Short stenting resulted in both less restenosis (68 of 431 (15.8%)) than conventional stenting (93 of 381 (24.4%), p = 0.007) and less late lumen loss (0.6 (0.6) mm v 0.75 (0.5) mm, p = 0.0001). Residual stenosis (< 45%) in adjacent vessel segments after short stenting did not affect the restenosis rate. Only the implantation of a < or = 9 mm stent predicted the absence of restenosis in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Shortening the length of bare metal stents reduces the restenosis rate as compared with conventional stenting.
Authors: Y Kobayashi; J De Gregorio; N Kobayashi; T Akiyama; B Reimers; L Finci; C Di Mario; A Colombo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D Kereiakes; T J Linnemeier; D S Baim; R Kuntz; C O'Shaughnessy; J Hermiller; S Fink; A Lansky; N Nishimura; T M Broderick; J Popma Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2000-08-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jürgen Pache; Adnan Kastrati; Julinda Mehilli; Helmut Schühlen; Franz Dotzer; Jörg Hausleiter; Martin Fleckenstein; Franz Josef Neumann; Ulrich Sattelberger; Claus Schmitt; Martina Müller; Josef Dirschinger; Albert Schömig Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-04-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Saskia Z H Rittersma; Robbert J de Winter; Karel T Koch; Matthijs Bax; Carl E Schotborgh; Karla J Mulder; Jan G P Tijssen; Jan J Piek Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Patrick W Serruys; Sander IJsselmuiden; Ben van Hout; Paul Vermeersch; Ezio Bramucci; Victor Legrand; Michael Pieper; David Antoniucci; Ricardo Seabra Gomes; Carlos Macaya; Peter Boekstegers; Wietze Lindeboom Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Intervent Date: 2003
Authors: Erik Jørgensen; Henning Kelbaek; Steffen Helqvist; Gunnar V H Jensen; Kari Saunamäki; Jens Kastrup; Jan Kyst Madsen; Lene Kløvgaard; Leif Thuesen; Anton Villadsen; Anton W M van Weert; Johan H C Reiber Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Pedro A Lemos; Patrick W Serruys; Ron T van Domburg; Francesco Saia; Chourmouzios A Arampatzis; Angela Hoye; Muzaffer Degertekin; Kengo Tanabe; Joost Daemen; Tommy K K Liu; Eugene McFadden; Georgios Sianos; Sjoerd H Hofma; Pieter C Smits; Willem J van der Giessen; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-12-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kaoru Tanaka; Stéphane G Carlier; Gary S Mintz; Koichi Sano; Xuebo Liu; Kenichi Fujii; Jose de Ribamar Costa; Joanna Lui; Jeffrey W Moses; Gregg W Stone; Martin B Leon Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2007-03-17 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Z Vajda; E Miloslavski; T Güthe; S Fischer; G Albes; A Heuschmid; H Henkes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-09-03 Impact factor: 3.825