A randomized study of direct coronary stent delivery compared with stenting after predilatation: the NIR future trial. On behalf of the NIR Future Trial Investigators

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000 Aug;50(4):377-81; discussion 382-3. doi: 10.1002/1522-726x(200008)50:4<377::aid-ccd1>3.0.co;2-i.

Abstract

This randomized trial compared a strategy of direct stenting without predilatation (n = 39) with conventional stenting with predilatation (n = 42) in patients with suitable lesions in native vessels > or = 2. 5-mm diameter to be covered by either a 9- or 16-mm-length NIR Primo stent. Equipment cost [mean (median) +/- SD] was less in those with direct stenting [$1,199 (979) +/- 526] than in those with predilatation [$1,455 (1,285) +/- 401, P < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in contrast use or fluoroscopy time. Procedural time was shorter in the direct stenting group. The clinical outcome at 1 month was satisfactory in both groups. In selected patients, a strategy of direct stenting is feasible, costs less, and is quicker to perform than the conventional strategy of stenting following predilatation.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Angina Pectoris / diagnostic imaging
  • Angina Pectoris / therapy*
  • Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / economics
  • Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / instrumentation*
  • Australia
  • Coronary Angiography
  • Costs and Cost Analysis
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • New Zealand
  • Stents* / economics