These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Direct drug-eluting stenting to reduce stent restenosis: a randomized comparison of direct stent implantation to conventional stenting with pre-dilation or provisional stenting in elective PCI patients.
    Author: Remkes WS, Somi S, Roolvink V, Rasoul S, Ottervanger JP, Gosselink AT, Hoorntje JC, Dambrink JH, de Boer MJ, Suryapranata H, van 't Hof AW, Acute Myocardial Infarction Study Group.
    Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2014 Jul; 7(7):751-8. PubMed ID: 25060017.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The aim was to investigate whether a strategy of direct drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation without pre-dilation is associated with a reduced incidence of restenosis compared with CS with pre-dilation or provisional stenting (PS). BACKGROUND: Previous studies were performed comparing direct stenting (DS) with conventional stenting (CS) after pre-dilation; however, none of these in the DES era. Therefore, the STRESSED (direct Stenting To reduce REStenosis in Stent Era with Drug elution) study was designed and carried out. METHODS: A total of 600 patients with angina pectoris or recent myocardial infarction were randomized to a DS, CS, or PS strategy. The primary endpoint was the mean minimal lumen diameter at 9-month follow-up angiography. Secondary endpoints were clinical procedural success defined as angiographic success without in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and MACE at 9-month and 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Stent implantation in the DS group was 98%, 99% in the CS group, and 77% in the PS group. Percutaneous coronary intervention success was 99% in all groups. The minimal lumen diameter at 9-month follow-up was 2.12 ± 0.58 mm (DS), 2.17 ± 0.67 mm (CS), and 1.99 ± 0.69 mm (PS), p = 0.556 for comparison of DS with CS, p = 0.073 for comparison of DS with PS. The absolute difference was -0.05 (DS to CS), 95% confidence interval: -0.19 to -0.09, p = 0.48 and 0.13 (DS to PS), confidence interval: -0.02 to -0.27, p = 0.087. Restenosis was found in 3.4% (DS), 6.7% (CS), and 11.5% (PS), p = 0.025. At 9-month and 2-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 6.8% and 11.5% (DS), 4.6% and 10.3% (CS), and 7.6% and 13.8% (PS) (p = 0.439 and 0.536), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Direct DES implantation compared with conventional DES implantation did not reduce restenosis. Provisional stenting, however, was associated with a higher rate of restenosis. This did not translate into a difference in the rate of MACE. (STRESSED study: direct Stenting To reduce REStenosis in Stent Era with Drug elution; ISRCTN41213536).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]