Immediate stent implantation versus conventional techniques for the treatment of abrupt vessel closure or symptomatic dissections after coronary balloon angioplasty

Background Coronary stenting was initially designed to treat a bailout scenario. Prospective randomized trials comparing stent implantation with standard techniques, including emergency coronary artery bypass grafting, are lacking. The aim of this trial was to test the superiority of immediate stent implantation compared with standard techniques for the treatment of abrupt or threatening closure after coronary balloon angioplasty. Methods In a prospective trial, 100 patients with abrupt vessel closure or symptomatic dissections causing objective signs of ischemia were randomly assigned to treatment with immediate placement of stents (n = 51) versus standard techniques such as prolonged dilatation or emergency bypass surgery (n = 49). The primary end point was the achievement of successful stabilization not requiring crossover to the other study group. Secondary end points included event-free survival and restenosis. Results Successful stabilization was achieved in 94% of patients in the stent group compared with 78% of patients in the standard treatment group (P = .038). Two patients died in each group, and there was a trend toward a higher incidence of myocardial infarction (16% vs 8%; P = .163) and a significantly increased creatine phosphokinase level (245 IU/L [95% confidence interval, 217-265 IU/L] vs 179 IU/L [confidence interval 140-212 IU/L]; P = .0002) in the standard treatment group. Event-free survival after 250 days was 72% in the stent group compared with 29% in the standard treatment group (P = .001). The angiographic restenosis rate was 30% in the stent group versus 59% in the standard treatment group (P = .01). Conclusions Immediate stenting, if technically feasible, shows superior short- and long-term results compared with standard treatment options. (Am Heart J 2000;140:e26.)