Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
Eduardo Moreyra
Scott Woodfield
Gustavo Caballero
Aníbal Damonte
Miguel A. Ballarino
Eduardo Picabea
Jorge Baccaro
Guillermo Pacheco
Luis Tapia
Esteban Ruiz Lascano
Alberto Sampaolesi
Source :
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 58:434-440
Publication Year :
2003
Publisher :
Wiley, 2003.

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.

Details

ISSN :
1522726X and 15221946
Volume :
58
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....51da79d9123f1fad426791905f9737d0
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.10404