Direct stent implantation significantly reduced the composite angiographic end point of slow and no-reflow or distal embolization compared to conventional stenting (11.7% vs. 26.9%, p=0.01).
RCT (n=206)
No
Does direct stent implantation improve angiographic and clinical outcomes compared to conventional stent implantation with pre-dilation in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Direct stenting during primary angioplasty for AMI is safe and reduces microvascular injury compared to conventional stenting with pre-dilation.
Absolute Event Rate: 11.7% vs 26.9%
p-value: p=0.01
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether direct stenting might prevent the adverse events associated with stent implantation during primary angioplasty and to compare it with conventional stent implantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: No trial has demonstrated that stents favorably influence mortality rate. Recent studies have even suggested a negative impact of stents on coronary blood flow and clinical outcome. METHODS: Of 409 patients treated by primary angioplasty with stent implantation in our center, 206 (50%) were enrolled in this randomized, single-center trial and allocated to direct stent implantation (n = 102) or stent implantation after balloon pre-dilation (n = 104). The study end points included angiographic results (final corrected Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction TIMI frame count and a composite end point of slow and no-reflow or distal embolization), an electrocardiogram marker of myocardial reperfusion assessment (ST-segment resolution) and in-hospital clinical outcome (death and recurrent infarction). RESULTS: Direct stent implantation failed in eight patients but succeeded after pre-dilation in all. A non-significant increase in TIMI flow grade 3 was achieved after direct stenting (95.1% vs. 93.3%, p = 0.74) without significant difference in the corrected TIMI frame count (31.5 +/- 17 and 35.2 +/- 20 frames after direct and conventional stent, respectively, p = 0.42). The composite angiographic end point was significantly reduced by direct stent implantation (11.7% vs. 26.9%, p = 0.01). ST-segment resolution was also significantly improved after direct stent (no ST-segment resolution in 20.2% vs. 38.1% after direct and conventional stent, respectively, p = 0.01). Death and/or recurrent infarction occurred in six patients after conventional stent implantation and in two patients after direct stenting (p = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with AMI, direct stenting can be applied safely and effectively. This strategy may result in a significant reduction of microvascular injury, as suggested by improved ST-segment resolution after reperfusion with major potential clinical consequences.
Loubeyre et al. (Tue,) conducted a rct in Acute myocardial infarction (n=206). Direct stent implantation vs. Conventional stent implantation after balloon pre-dilation was evaluated on Composite angiographic end point of slow and no-reflow or distal embolization (p=0.01). Direct stent implantation significantly reduced the composite angiographic end point of slow and no-reflow or distal embolization compared to conventional stenting (11.7% vs. 26.9%, p=0.01).