Download PDFPDF
Is direct stenting superior to stenting with predilation in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention? results from a meta-analysis of 24 randomised controlled trials
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    • Inigo Lozano, MD, PHD, FACC, FESC
    • Other Contributors:
      • Pablo Avanzas, MD, PHD, FESC, Juan Rondan, MD, PHD

    We have read with interest the article written by Piscione et al1 related with direct stenting. The authors have performed a meta-analysis of 24 randomised controlled trials of direct stenting vs. stenting with predilatation and the conclusion is a 23 % reduction in the odds of myocardial infarction. In our opinion, direct stenting should be the approach of choice in all the susceptible cases because this important bene...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.