Emergency endoluminal stenting for abrupt vessel closure following coronary angioplasty: A randomized comparison of the wiktor and palmaz‐schatz stents

Abstract

In order to compare the efficacy of two different stent types in case of bailout stenting, 65 patients, with abrupt or threatened vessel closure following coronary angioplasty, were randomly assigned to either Wiktor (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, 33 patients) or Palmaz-Schatz (Johnson & Johnson Interventional, Warren, NJ, 32 patients) stent implantation. Stenting was technically feasible in all except one patient and immediately successful in reverting ischemia and vessel closure in 60 patients (92%). At hospital discharge, complication rates were comparable: early vessel closure, 18% (Wiktor) versus 13% (Palmaz-Schatz) (P = 0.53); any clinical event (such as death, myocardial infarction, and surgical revascularization): 18% (Wiktor) versus 22% (Palmaz-Schatz) (P = 0.71). At 6 months follow-up, these complication rates remained equal: restenosis, 38% (Wiktor) versus 27% (Palmaz-Schatz) (P = 0.42); any clinical and angiographic (vessel closure and restenosis) event: 45% (Wiktor) and 41% (Palmaz-Schatz) (P = 0.69). Baseline, direct postprocedural, and follow-up quantitative coronary analysis data were similar, with, however, an exception for the postprocedural residual stenosis [28% (24-32%) (Wiktor) and 21% (18-23%) (Palmaz-Schatz] (means and 95% confidence intervals). In conclusion, despite a discrete postprocedural angiographic benefit observed with the Palmaz-Schatz stent, the long-term clinical and angiographic outcome is similar in both treatment groups. The choice whether to implant a Wiktor or Palmaz-Schatz stent may probably be left to the discretion of the operator and his experience with one particular device.