[Direct stent implantation in acute myocardial infarction. The DISCO 3 study]

Carlos Cuellas1, Felipe Fernández-Vázquez, Ginés Martínez

  • 1Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital de León, España. ccuellas@secardiologia.es

Insights

Direct stenting is feasible in over half of acute myocardial infarction patients, improving reperfusion without increasing adverse events. Key factors for direct stenting include early presentation and initial blood flow.

Area of Science:

  • Interventional Cardiology
  • Acute Myocardial Infarction Management
  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background:

  • Direct stenting in primary angioplasty is associated with reduced no-reflow phenomenon and distal embolization.
  • The clinical utility and patient selection criteria for direct stenting in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) require further elucidation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine the proportion of AMI patients suitable for direct stent implantation.
  • To identify predictors for successful direct stenting in AMI.
  • To evaluate the impact of direct stenting versus predilatation on reperfusion and clinical outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • Prospective, descriptive, multicenter study (DISCO 3) involving 189 AMI patients.
  • Assessment of angiographic reperfusion parameters and ST-segment resolution.
  • Recording of adverse clinical events at discharge, and at 1 and 6 months.

Main Results:

  • Direct stenting was performed in 56% of patients; predilatation in 44%.
  • Predictors for direct stenting included short postinfarction delay, non-zero initial TIMI flow, and preinfarction angina.
  • Direct stenting showed superior myocardial reperfusion: 84% vs 69% TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 2-3 (P=.005) and 66% vs 42% >70% ST-segment resolution (P=.003).

Conclusions:

  • Direct stenting is a feasible strategy in over half of AMI patients.
  • Contraindications include severely calcified lesions, tortuous vessels, and occluded guidewire passage.
  • Improved myocardial reperfusion was observed with direct stenting, with no significant difference in adverse clinical events.
Abstract