Provisional stenting for multivessel PCI

Abstract

Background: Bare stents reduce acute complications and repeat revascularization following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but are costly and may lead to in‐stent restenosis. It remains unclear whether stents should be universally implanted or whether provisional stenting mainly to suboptimal balloon dilatation results is an acceptable approach for multivessel PCI. Objective: To compare the long‐term clinical restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR) of stented and non‐stented coronary artery lesions in patients who had multivessel PCI. Methods: We performed retrospective analysis of matched data from 129 consecutive patients who underwent multivessel PCI (at least optimal balloon angioplasty to one coronary artery segment and balloon angioplasty plus stenting to another coronary artery in the same patient, all lesions are de novo native coronary artery lesions with vessel diameter ⩾2.5 mm). The study endpoint was restenosis and repeat revascularization at one‐year follow‐up. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Low in‐hospital MACE (3.1%). Acute myocardial infarction, emergency revascularization via either PCI or CABG was detected and angiographic success was achieved in 99.3% of lesions in both groups. The rate of clinically driven angiographic restenosis and TLR at one‐year (follow‐up 100%) was similar (17.1% versus 18.6%, P = 0.871, and 13.9% versus 16.3%, P = 0.728, for optimal balloon angioplasty versus provisional stenting. Conclusions: The main findings from this study are that long‐term angiographic restenosis and TLR was comparable for optimal balloon angioplasty and provisional stenting, suggesting that provisional stenting is an acceptable approach for multivessel PCI.

• Percutaneous coronary intervention
• balloon angioplasty
• stent implantation