» Articles » PMID: 11741553

Comparison of PRE-dilatation Vs Direct Stenting in Coronary Treatment Using the Medtronic AVE S670 Coronary Stent System (the PREDICT Trial)

Overview
Journal Am J Cardiol
Date 2001 Dec 14
PMID 11741553
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Current stent delivery systems make primary stenting (stent placement without predilatation) possible, but few controlled trials have been performed to evaluate the success, safety, cost saving, and potential benefit of this approach in reducing late restenosis. The Comparison of PRE-Dilatation Versus Direct Stenting In Coronary Treatment using the Medtronic AVE S670 Coronary Stent System trial was a 399-patient study comparing results with the Medtronic-AVE S670 stent to objective performance criteria based on prior approved stents, with subrandomization to direct stenting versus stenting after balloon predilatation. Overall, results with the S670 stent showed excellent success and safety, with delivery success of 99%, a 14-day adverse event rate of 6.8% (including 6.5% non-Q-wave myocardial infarction), and favorable angiographic (20%) and clinical (12%) restenosis rates. Direct stenting was successful in 92% of cases, with a 99.5% secondary success rate including additional pretreatment of initially unsuccessful direct-stenting attempts, and no increase in complications. There were modest ( approximately 10%) savings in fluoroscopy time, contrast use, and a decrease in angioplasty balloon use (0.6 vs 1.3 balloons/case), but no reduction in clinical or angiographic restenosis. Patients treated later in the study, with a device that had less balloon extension beyond the edges of the stent, had slightly lower angiographic restenosis rates (19% vs 23%). In conclusion, the S670 stent showed excellent overall performance. Although direct stenting was safe and highly successful, it offered only modest cost savings, and no reduction in late restenosis compared with stenting after predilatation.

Citing Articles

Weighted Co-Expression Network Analysis Identifies RNF181 as a Causal Gene of Coronary Artery Disease.

Dang R, Qu B, Guo K, Zhou S, Sun H, Wang W Front Genet. 2022; 12:818813.

PMID: 35222523 PMC: 8867041. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2021.818813.


What is better for predilatation in bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: a non-compliant or a compliant balloon?.

Ozel E, Tastan A, Ozturk A, Ozcan E, Uyar S, Senarslan O Anatol J Cardiol. 2015; 16(4):244-9.

PMID: 26642470 PMC: 5368433. DOI: 10.5152/AnatolJCardiol.2015.6184.


Safety, efficacy and costs associated with direct coronary stenting compared with stenting after predilatation: A randomised controlled trial.

IJsselmuiden A, Serruys P, Tangelder G, Slagboom T, van der Wieken R, Kiemeneij F Neth Heart J. 2015; 12(7-8):323-330.

PMID: 25696356 PMC: 2497143.


In-hospital and mid-term adverse clinical outcomes of a direct stenting strategy versus stenting after pre-dilatation for the treatment of coronary artery lesions.

Alidoosti M, Salarifar M, Kassaian S, Zeinali A, Fathollahi M, Dehkordi M Cardiovasc J Afr. 2008; 19(6):297-302.

PMID: 19104724 PMC: 3971615.


Submaximal angioplasty and staged stenting for severe posterior circulation intracranial stenosis: a technique in evolution.

Levy E, Howington J, Engh J, Hanel R, Levy N, Kim S Neurocrit Care. 2005; 2(2):189-97.

PMID: 16159065 DOI: 10.1385/ncc:2:2:189.