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

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003 Apr;58(4):434-40. doi: 10.1002/ccd.10404.

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.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / adverse effects
  • Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / methods*
  • Catheterization / adverse effects
  • Catheterization / methods*
  • Confidence Intervals
  • Coronary Angiography
  • Coronary Disease / diagnostic imaging
  • Coronary Disease / therapy*
  • Coronary Restenosis / physiopathology
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Length of Stay
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Probability
  • Prospective Studies
  • Risk Assessment
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Severity of Illness Index
  • Stents*
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Vascular Patency