Premium
Randomized comparison of the coil‐design Crossflex and the tubular NIR stent
Author(s) -
Thuesen Leif,
Andersen Henning R.,
Krusell Lars R.,
Bøtker Hans E.,
Jørgensen Erik,
Kelbæk Henning,
Kristensen Steen D.
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.10499
Subject(s) - medicine , stent , clinical endpoint , coronary angiography , randomized controlled trial , lesion , artery , radiology , nuclear medicine , surgery , cardiology , myocardial infarction
The purpose of this study was to compare the angiographic outcome of implantation of the coil‐design Crossflex stent with the tubular NIR stent for treatment of coronary artery stenoses. Two hundred twenty‐three patients with one genuine coronary artery lesion were randomized to implantation with a 15 mm Crossflex stent (n = 112) or a 16 mm NIR stent (n = 111). The patients had angiographic follow‐up after 6 months. Primary endpoint was minimal luminal diameter (MLD) after 6 months. There was a similar clinical outcome in the two groups. At 6‐month follow‐up, the MLD was significantly lower in the Crossflex group (1.94 ± 0.79 mm) than in the NIR group (2.37 ± 0.84 mm; P < 0.001). Early gain was the same in the two groups. Late loss and percent diameter stenoses were significantly higher in the Crossflex group. The binary restenoses rate was 26% and 17% in the Crossflex and the NIR groups, respectively ( P = NS). The coil‐design Crossflex stent was found to be inferior to the tubular NIR stent concerning late loss and MLD at 6‐month follow‐up. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2003;59:8–12. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.