Comparison of Long Versus Short (“Spot”) Drug-Eluting Stenting for Long Coronary Stenoses

• Published in: The American journal of cardiology 2009-09, Vol.104 (6), p.786-790
• Main Authors: Katritsis, Demosthenes G., MD, PhD, Korovesis, Socrates, MD, Tzanalaridou, Efthalia, BSc, Giazitzoglou, Eleftherios, MD, Voridis, Eutychios, MD, Meier, Bernhard, MD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Biological and medical sciences; Cardiology. Vascular system; Cardiovascular; Cardiovascular disease; Clinical outcomes; Comparative analysis; Coronary Angiography; Coronary heart disease; Coronary Stenosis - diagnostic imaging; Coronary Stenosis - mortality; Coronary Stenosis - pathology; Coronary Stenosis - therapy; Diseases of the cardiovascular system; Drug-Eluting Stents; Female; Heart; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Medical treatment; Middle Aged; Prosthesis Design; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects); Stents
• ISSN: 0002-9149; 1879-1913
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.04.056

We compared spot drug-eluting stenting (DES) to full stent coverage for treatment of long coronary stenoses. Consecutive, consenting patients with a long (>20 mm) coronary lesion of nonuniform severity and indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to full stent coverage of the atherosclerotic lesion with multiple, overlapping stenting (full DES group, n = 90) or spot stenting of hemodynamically significant parts of the lesion only (defined as diameter stenosis >50%; spot DES group, n = 89). At 1-year follow-up, 14 patients with full DES (15.6%) and 5 patients (5.6%) with spot DES had a major adverse cardiac event (MACE; p = 0.031). At 3 years, MACEs occurred in 18 patients with full DES (20%) and 7 patients (7.8%) with spot DES (p = 0.019). Cox proportional hazard model showed that the risk for MACEs was almost 60% lower in patients with spot DES compared to those with full DES (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.98, p = 0.044). This association remained even after controlling for age, gender, lesion length, and type of stent used (hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 1.00, p = 0.05). In conclusion, total lesion coverage with DES is not necessary in the presence of diffuse disease of nonuniform severity. Selective stenting of only the significantly stenosed parts of the lesion is an appropriate therapeutic alternative in this setting, offering a favorable clinical outcome.