Objectives: We sought to make a prospective comparison of systematic stenting with provisional stenting guided by Doppler measurements of coronary velocity reserve and quantitative coronary angiography.
Background: Despite the increasing use of stents during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, it is unclear whether systematic stenting is superior to a strategy of provisional stenting in which stents are placed only in patients with unsatisfactory results or as a bail-out procedure.
Methods: Two hundred fifty-one patients undergoing elective coronary angioplasty were randomly assigned either to provisional stenting (group 1, in which stenting was performed if postangioplasty coronary velocity reserve was <2.2 and/or residual stenosis > or =35% or as bail-out) or to systematic stenting (group 2). The primary end point was the six-month angiographic minimal lumen diameter (MLD). Major adverse cardiac events were secondary end points (death, acute myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization).
Results: Stenting was performed in 48.4% of patients in group 1 and 100% of patients in group 2 (p<0.01). Six months after angioplasty, the MLD did not differ between groups (1.90+/-0.79 mm vs. 1.99+/-0.70 mm, p = 0.39), as was the rate of binary restenosis (27.1% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.37). Among patients with restenosis, 13/32 (40.6%) in group 1 but 100% (25/25) in group 2 had in-stent restenosis (p<0.01). Target lesion revascularization (15.1% vs. 14.4% in groups 1 and 2 respectively, p = 0.89) and major adverse cardiac events (15.1% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.85) were not significantly different.
Conclusions: Systematic stenting does not provide superior angiographic results at six months as compared with provisional stenting.