Angiographic, intravascular ultrasound, and fractional flow reserve evaluation of direct stenting vs. conventional stenting using BeStent2 in a multicentre randomized trial

7Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aims: Direct stenting (DS) may not be as safe and effective as conventional stenting. The objective was to demonstrate equivalence of post-procedural mean luminal diameter (MLD) by angiography after BeStent2 placement between DS and pre-dilatation (PD) strategy. Methods and results: Two hundred and two patients with a single de novo lesion (diameter ≥3.0 mm and length ≤13 mm) were randomized to DS (n = 101) vs. PD. Stent deployment was guided by on-line quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). A second randomization assigned half of the patients to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment. QCA was repeated at 6 months. Baseline characteristics were similar. Crossover to PD was necessary in seven DS patients. Stent deployment was successful in 97% (DS) and 98% (PD). The post-procedural MLD was 2.79 ± 0.45 mm (DS) and 2.76 ± 0.40 mm (PD). The null-hypothesis of non-equivalence could be rejected (95% one-sided; P = 0.0003). The minimum stent area (IVUS) was 7.89 ± 1.75 mm2 (DS) and 8.07 ± 2.37 mm2 (PD; P = 0.69), with an FFR of 0.92 ± 0.07 and 0.92 ± 0.05, respectively (P = 0.97). Major adverse cardiac event rates at 6 months were 9% (DS) and 11% (PD; P = 0.93). Target lesion re-angioplasty was 6% (DS) and 5% (PD; P = 0.77). The in-stent restenosis rate by QCA was 7.4% (DS) and 6.8% (PD; P = 0.87). Conclusion: DS with BeStent2 is equivalent to PD. Both strategies resulted in a low angiographic restenosis rate. © The European Society of Cardiology 2005. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wijns, W., Verheye, S., Manoharan, G., Werner, G. S., Grube, E., De Bruyne, B., … De Feyter, P. J. (2005). Angiographic, intravascular ultrasound, and fractional flow reserve evaluation of direct stenting vs. conventional stenting using BeStent2 in a multicentre randomized trial. European Heart Journal, 26(18), 1852–1859. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi286

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free