Background In the last decade, direct stenting has been proposed as an alternative strategy to conventional stenting with balloon predilation. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing a direct stenting strategy versus a conventional one.
Methods A literature search was performed using Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, scientific session abstracts and relevant websites, from inception of each database to June 2009. Included studies comprised randomised controlled trials evaluating direct versus conventional stenting in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Primary endpoint was the composite of death or myocardial infarction and secondary endpoints were myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularisation occurrence.
Results 24 trials met inclusion criteria, with 6803 patients enrolled (3412 or 50.15% randomised to direct stenting and 3391 or 49.85% randomised to conventional stenting). Up to 6-month follow-up, the composite of death or myocardial infarction was significantly reduced with direct stenting compared with conventional stenting (3.95% versus 5.10% respectively, OR=0.76 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.96), p=0.02). This reduction was primarily driven by a lower myocardial infarction occurrence (3.16% versus 4.04%, respectively, OR=0.77 (0.59 to 0.99), p=0.04). Furthermore, direct stenting was not associated with a reduction in target-vessel revascularisation (6.50% versus 6.96%, respectively, OR=0.92 (0.76 to 1.12), p=0.42).
Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrates that, in selected coronary lesions, direct stenting improves outcome in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, primarily reducing myocardial infarction incidence.
- Coronary intervention
- coronary angioplasty (PCI)
- coronary stenting
- coronary artery disease (CAD)
- direct stenting
- conventional stenting
- percutaneous coronary intervention
- myocardial infarction
- target-vessel revascularisation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.