Related Experiment Videos
Randomized comparison of the coil-design Crossflex and the tubular NIR stent
Leif Thuesen1, Henning R Andersen, Lars R Krusell
1Department of Cardiology, Skejby Sygehus, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. leif.thuesen@iekf.au.dk
Insights
The coil-design Crossflex stent showed inferior angiographic outcomes compared to the tubular NIR stent in treating coronary artery stenoses. Specifically, the Crossflex stent resulted in a significantly lower minimal luminal diameter at 6-month follow-up.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
- Biomedical Engineering
Background:
- Coronary artery stenoses are a leading cause of cardiovascular disease.
- Stent implantation is a common intervention for treating these stenoses.
- Different stent designs may influence long-term outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the angiographic outcomes of the coil-design Crossflex stent versus the tubular NIR stent.
- To evaluate the efficacy of these stents in treating coronary artery stenoses.
Main Methods:
- A randomized controlled trial involving 223 patients with single coronary artery lesions.
- Patients received either a Crossflex stent (n=112) or an NIR stent (n=111).
- Angiographic follow-up was performed at 6 months, with minimal luminal diameter (MLD) as the primary endpoint.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in clinical outcomes between the two groups.
- The Crossflex stent group had a significantly lower MLD (1.94 ± 0.79 mm) compared to the NIR stent group (2.37 ± 0.84 mm) at 6 months (P < 0.001).
- Higher rates of late loss and percent diameter stenosis were observed in the Crossflex group, though binary restenosis rates were not significantly different.
Conclusions:
- The coil-design Crossflex stent demonstrated inferior angiographic performance compared to the tubular NIR stent.
- The NIR stent is a potentially more effective option for maintaining luminal patency in the long term.
- Further research into stent design and its impact on coronary artery disease treatment is warranted.
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to compare the angiographic outcome of implantation of the coil-design Crossflex stent with the tubular NIR stent for treatment of coronary artery stenoses. Two hundred twenty-three patients with one genuine coronary artery lesion were randomized to implantation with a 15 mm Crossflex stent (n = 112) or a 16 mm NIR stent (n = 111). The patients had angiographic follow-up after 6 months. Primary endpoint was minimal luminal diameter (MLD) after 6 months. There was a similar clinical outcome in the two groups. At 6-month follow-up, the MLD was significantly lower in the Crossflex group (1.94 +/- 0.79 mm) than in the NIR group (2.37 +/- 0.84 mm; P < 0.001). Early gain was the same in the two groups. Late loss and percent diameter stenoses were significantly higher in the Crossflex group. The binary restenoses rate was 26% and 17% in the Crossflex and the NIR groups, respectively (P = NS). The coil-design Crossflex stent was found to be inferior to the tubular NIR stent concerning late loss and MLD at 6-month follow-up.