Direct Implantation of Drug Eluting Stents does not reduce restenosis

Original: Direct drug-eluting Stenting to reduce stent reestenosis (STRESSED). Reference: Wouter S. Remkes et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv, 2014;7: 751-8.

Direct stenting, without predilation, has been considered a safe and effective technique that reduces procedural time, radiation exposure, contrast material and costs; however, the pertinent studies tested conventional stents only. 

This study aimed at assessing whether DES direct implantation is associated with less restenosis than DES implantation with predilation.

It included 600 patients, younger than 85, with stable angina or recent unstable angina, with type ACC/AHA A, B1 and B2 lesions, non-calcified, and +50% to -100% restenosis. It did not include patients with bifurcation, ostial or left main lesions or with severe ventricular or renal failure. It used second generation zotarolimus or everolimus eluting stents.

Patients were randomized to 3 groups: direct DES stenting, DS (n=198); DES stenting with predilation, CS (n=201); and provisional DES stenting, PS (n=201).

Primary end point was minimal lumen diameter measured by quantitative angiography at 9 months and the secondary end point was a combination of death, infarction and revascularization during hospitalization, at 9 months and 2 years. 

Procedural success was 99% in both groups. Minimal lumen diameter at 9 months was 2.12mm (DS), 2.17mm (CS) and 1.99mm (PS); and restenosis was 3.4% (DS), 6.7% (CS) and 11.5% (PS).  MACE at 9 months and 2 years occurred in 6.8% and 11.5% (DS), 4.6% and 10.3% (CS) and 7.6% and 13.8% (PS), respectively.

Conclusion

Direct DES stenting did not reduce restenosis compared to DES stenting with predilation. Provisional stenting was associated with greater restenosis. MACE during follow up did not show significant differences between the three groups.

Editorial Comment

This study included the provisional stent group as a follow up to DIRECT-2, which used the same design to test conventional stents. Its outcomes matched the expectations for this group, since 23% of patients did not receive a stent. The direct stenting group was expected to show a reduction in restenosis since lesions were less complex and this technique has several advantages. Further analysis of both techniques with a larger population is still required.

Courtesy of Dr. Alfonso Francisco Balaguer Quiroga
Interventinal Cardiologist 
International Clinique. Lima, Perú.

Alfonso Francisco Balaguer Quiroga

More articles by this author

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

Patients at High Risk of Bleeding After Coronary Angioplasty: Are Risk Assessment Tools ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT Useful?

Patients undergoing coronary stenting typically receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 to 12 months, consisting of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and aspirin. While DAPT...

ACC 2025 | WARRIOR: Ischemia in Women with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Approximately half of all women with symptomatic ischemia who undergo coronary angiography are found to have non-obstructive coronary artery disease ((ischemia and non-obstructive coronary...

ACC 2025 | FLAVOUR II: Angiography-Derived FFR-Guided vs. IVUS-Guided PCI

Physiological assessment is effective when it comes to decision-making for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, despite the available evidence, its use remains limited. AngioFFR...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

RACE Trial: Effect of Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty and Riociguat on Right Ventricular Afterload and Function in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension

Even though pulmonary endarterectomy is the treatment of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), up to 40% of patients are not candidates because...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

TAVR in Small Annuli: What Valve Should We Use?

One of the major challenges of severe aortic stenosis are patients with small aortic annuli, defined as ≤430 mm² aortic valve area. This condition...