Menafoglio A, Eeckhout E, Debbas N, Faivre R, Petiteau P Y, Vogt P, Stauffer J C, Goy J J
Cardiology Division, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998 Apr;43(4):403-7. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0304(199804)43:4<403::aid-ccd9>3.0.co;2-c.
This randomised trial compared the Micro Stent I and the Palmaz-Schatz stent for the elective treatment of short (<8 mm long), new-onset coronary stenoses. The primary endpoints were restenosis rate and minimal luminal diameter at 6 mo angiographic follow-up. The secondary endpoints were angiographic and procedural success of stenting and a composite clinical endpoint at 6 mo (death, myocardial infarction, and target site revascularisation). A total of 93 patients were randomised. Clinical and angiographic characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Angiographic success of stenting was 96% in both groups, and there were no complications so that the procedural success was also 96% in both groups. The restenosis rate was 29% for Micro Stent I and 27% for the Palmaz-Schatz stent (P = NS). The minimal luminal diameter at 6 mo was 1.75 +/- 0.72 mm in the Micro Stent I group and 1.84 +/- 0.59 in the Palmaz-Schatz group (P = NS). At 6 mo, a clinical endpoint was reached by 21% of the patients in the Micro Stent I group and by 11% in the Palmaz-Schatz group (P = NS). In conclusion, the elective treatment of short coronary stenosis with the Micro Stent I or the Palmaz-Schatz stent resulted in similar early and late outcomes. In particular, the late angiographic results were very similar.
