Premium
Multicenter randomized comparison of direct vs. conventional stenting: The DIRECTO trial
Author(s) -
Ballarino Miguel A.,
Moreyra Eduardo,
Damonte Aníbal,
Sampaolesi Alberto,
Woodfield Scott,
Pacheco Guillermo,
Caballero Gustavo,
Picabea Eduardo,
Baccaro Jorge,
Tapia Luis,
Lascano Esteban Ruiz
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.10404
Subject(s) - medicine , coronary stenting , stent , randomized controlled trial , balloon , surgery , restenosis
With conventional stenting, predilatation frequently induces dissections that require deploying stents longer than originally planned. To assess whether direct stenting is safe and may prevent dissections and reduce the length of stents implanted, we conducted a randomized study comparing direct (n = 73) and conventional (n = 78) stenting. Direct stenting was successful in 89% of cases, 11% crossed over to predilation without complications. Dissections occurred more frequently in conventional stenting group (10.3% vs. 1.4%; P = 0.034), but did not translate to a significant stent length difference (16.31 ± 7.6 vs. 15.31 ± 5.5; P = NS). Periprocedure creatine kinase elevation and number of balloons utilized were lower with direct stenting. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2003;58:434–440. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.