International Heart Journal
Online ISSN : 1349-3299
Print ISSN : 1349-2365
Clinical Studies
Direct Stenting Versus Predilatation and Stenting Technique When Using Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents
Tolga KocumMustafa YurtdasTurkay OzcanBurak AkcayTansel ErolAhmet CamsariOben Doven
Author information

2008 Volume 49 Issue 5 Pages 545-552


Direct stenting without predilatation is a well-defined, feasible method with bare metal stents. Direct stenting has also been shown to be safe and feasible with drug-eluting stents, however, there is much less evidence with this type of device when compared with bare metal stents.
Three hundred and sixty-four coronary lesions in 257 consecutive patients (mean age, 57.4 ± 9.8 years; 63 women) who had undergone elective stenting either with or without predilatation via a paclitaxel-eluting stent between March 2003 and March 2006 were retrospectively analyzed. Quantitative coronary angiography analysis was compared between the two groups of procedures; stenting with predilatation and direct stenting.
All procedures were uneventful. No deaths occurred during the follow-up period. Direct stenting when compared with the predilatation technique, significantly decreased both procedure time (32.1 ± 17.9 minute versus 41.2 ± 18.6 minute, P < 0.0001) and fluoroscopy time (10.6 ± 7.8 minute versus 15.5 ± 7.6 minute, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in quantitative analysis parameters of coronary angiography during follow-up or the rates of stent thrombosis and restenosis.
Direct stenting seems to be as feasible and safe as conventional predilatation and stenting in selected cases. Direct stenting seems to decrease procedural time and radiation exposure without any negative effect on quantitative analysis parameters of coronary angiography with approximately a one-year follow-up period.

Information related to the author
© 2008 by the International Heart Journal Association
Previous article Next article