Intracoronary stenting compared with conventional therapy for abrupt vessel closure complicating coronary...

A case-control analysis was performed to compare clinical outcome after intracoronary stenting with that after conventional therapy for abrupt vessel closure.

Previous studies have demonstrated that stenting after abrupt vessel closure results in marked angiographic improvement and preservation of coronary flow, leading to the anticipation of similar improvement in clinical outcome.

Sixty-one of 92 consecutive patients treated at two clinical sites by intracoronary stenting for abrupt vessel closure were matched, according to angiographic features of closure and estimated left ventricular mass threatened by ischemia, with patients treated conventionally during the 18 months before stent availability. In 33 pairs of matched patients, vessel closure was established; in 28 pairs, it was threatened (coronary dissection or worsening stenosis with preservation of normal anterograde flow). Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable in the two matched groups. Patients with indeterminate mechanisms of total occlusion (31%) or dissections < 15 mm long (43%) predominated; patients with visible thrombus (8%) or dissections > 15 mm long (18%) were infrequently represented. Stents were successfully deployed in 60 of 61 patients at a median of 52 min (range 3 to 269) after the onset of closure.

When compared with conventional treatment, stenting resulted in less residual stenosis (26% vs. 49% diameter stenosis, p < 0.001), a greater likelihood of restoration of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) grade 3 blood flow (97% vs. 72%, p < 0.001) and a reduction in the need for emergency bypass surgery (4.9% vs. 18%, p = 0.02). However, the incidence of Q wave myocardial infarction was nearly the same in the two groups (32% vs. 20%, respectively, p = NS). In the group with stenting, peak creatine kinase level and the frequency of Q wave infarction after established vessel closure increased with the time to stent placement (p = 0.001 and 0.054, respectively); the incidence of procedure-related Q wave infarction in patients who underwent stenting within 45 min of closure was very low (3.9%). In-hospital death occurred in 3.3% of patients in each treatment group. At a mean of 6.3 months of follow-up after hospital discharge, survival free from late cardiac death, myocardial infarction, bypass surgery or coronary angioplasty was 74.9% and 81.3% in the stent and the control treatment group, respectively (p = NS).

Although early treatment of established vessel closure by intracoronary stenting was associated with a low incidence of both myocardial infarction and emergency bypass surgery, the likelihood or severity of infarction was not reduced among those in whom stents were implanted later. Patients with threatened vessel closure could not be shown to benefit from stent treatment. These data provide preliminary indications for stent placement in the acute period to be validated in larger randomized studies.