Multicenter randomized comparison of direct vs. conventional stenting: The DIRECTO trial

✍ Scribed by Miguel A. Ballarino; Eduardo Moreyra Jr.; Aníbal Damonte; Alberto Sampaolesi; Scott Woodfield; Guillermo Pacheco; Gustavo Caballero; Eduardo Picabea; Jorge Baccaro; Luis Tapia; Esteban Ruiz Lascano

• Book ID: 101826196
• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2003
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 184 KB
• Volume: 58
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 1522-1946
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.10404

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

With conventional stenting, predilatation frequently induces dissections that require deploying stents longer than originally planned. To assess whether direct stenting is safe and may prevent dissections and reduce the length of stents implanted, we conducted a randomized study comparing direct (n = 73) and conventional (n = 78) stenting. Direct stenting was successful in 89% of cases, 11% crossed over to predilation without complications. Dissections occurred more frequently in conventional stenting group (10.3% vs. 1.4%; P = 0.034), but did not translate to a significant stent length difference (16.31 ± 7.6 vs. 15.31 ± 5.5; P = NS). Periprocedure creatine kinase elevation and number of balloons utilized were lower with direct stenting. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2003;58:434–440. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.