Comparison of full lesion coverage versus spot drug-eluting stent implantation for coronary artery stenoses

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the long-term clinical outcomes of the spot drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation strategy, which is used to minimize implanted stent length and the number of stents, versus full lesion coverage for treatment of coronary artery stenoses.

We evaluated 1-year clinical outcomes of 1619 patients with stent implantation for a single coronary lesion. They were divided into two groups: those treated by full lesion coverage (n=1200) and those treated with the spot stenting strategy (n=419). The combined occurrence of 1-year target vessel failure (TVF), including cardiac death, target-vessel related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization was evaluated.

The spot DES implantation group had a shorter stent length (23.14±9.70 mm vs. 25.44±13.24 mm, respectively; p<0.001) and a fewer number of stents (1.09±0.30 vs. 1.16±0.41, respectively; p<0.001), even though the average lesion length was similar to the full lesion coverage group (21.36±10.30 mm vs. 20.58±10.97 mm, respectively; p=0.206). Spot DES implantation was superior to full DES coverage with respect to 1-year TVF (1.4% vs. 3.3%, p=0.044). Cox proportional hazard model analysis showed that the risk for 1-year TVF was almost 60% lower among patients who received spot DESs compared to those who received full DES coverage after adjustment for other risk factors (HR=0.40, 95% confidence interval=0.17-0.98; p=0.046).

Minimizing stent length and the number of stents with overlapping by spot DES implantation may result in reduced rates of 1-year TVF, compared with full DES coverage.