OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effects of postdilatation of drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: Subotpimal stent expansion occurs after DES deployment. Postidlatation may improve DES expansion, but it is unclear whether postdilatation may also improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: Since July 2009, we adopted a strategy of routine postdilatation with noncompliant balloons of all DES, while previously postdilatation was performed only for suboptimal results. The first 279 consecutive patients (age 62 ± 9 years, 231 men) who underwent routine postilatation were compared with 262 patients (age 61 ± 9 years, 220 men) who received DES in the previous 6 months (standard treatment). RESULTS: The two groups were similar for age, sex, clinical presentation, and main risk factors, including incidence of diabetes. Routine postdilatation resulted in an improved minimal lumen diameter at the end of the procedure (2.60 ± 0.34 vs. 2.51 ± 0.37 mm, P = 0.003). At 12-month follow-up incidence of MACE (including periprocedural myocardial infarction) was 19.5% in the standard treatment group and 12.5% in routine postdilatation group (P = 0.04), with a significant difference in target vessel revascularization (10.7% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.03), while incidence of myocardial infarction was not significantly different between the two groups (10.7% vs. 9.3%, P = 0.70). Stent thrombosis (definite or probable) occurred in 3 patients in standard treatment group, while no case of stent thrombosis occurred among patients treated with routine postdilatation (1.1% vs. 0%, P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a strategy of routine postdilatation with non compliant balloons may improve clinical outcomes of DES.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effects of postdilatation of drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: Subotpimal stent expansion occurs after DES deployment. Postidlatation may improve DES expansion, but it is unclear whether postdilatation may also improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: Since July 2009, we adopted a strategy of routine postdilatation with noncompliant balloons of all DES, while previously postdilatation was performed only for suboptimal results. The first 279 consecutive patients (age 62 ± 9 years, 231 men) who underwent routine postilatation were compared with 262 patients (age 61 ± 9 years, 220 men) who received DES in the previous 6 months (standard treatment). RESULTS: The two groups were similar for age, sex, clinical presentation, and main risk factors, including incidence of diabetes. Routine postdilatation resulted in an improved minimal lumen diameter at the end of the procedure (2.60 ± 0.34 vs. 2.51 ± 0.37 mm, P = 0.003). At 12-month follow-up incidence of MACE (including periprocedural myocardial infarction) was 19.5% in the standard treatment group and 12.5% in routine postdilatation group (P = 0.04), with a significant difference in target vessel revascularization (10.7% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.03), while incidence of myocardial infarction was not significantly different between the two groups (10.7% vs. 9.3%, P = 0.70). Stent thrombosis (definite or probable) occurred in 3 patients in standard treatment group, while no case of stent thrombosis occurred among patients treated with routine postdilatation (1.1% vs. 0%, P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a strategy of routine postdilatation with non compliant balloons may improve clinical outcomes of DES.