Long-term comparison of balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting versus routine stenting in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome.

Abstract

Background. In patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) who are eligible for PCI, routine stenting is the recommended treatment strategy, based on the opinion of experts. Provisional stenting may provide a viable alternative by retaining the early benefits of stenting without its potential late hazards.Method. Patients with NSTE-ACS were randomised to provisional or routine stenting after coronary angiography. Patients were followed for up to ten years. The occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was recorded.Results. 237 consecutive patients with NSTE-ACS were randomly assigned to routine stenting (n=116) or provisional stenting (n=121). No difference in the incidence of MACE at 30 days was observed. At six months, angiographic restenosis was lower in the routine stenting group (41 vs. 20%, p=0.02), paralleled by more MACE in the provisional stenting group at one year (40.5 vs. 27.6%, p=0.036). At complete follow-up the difference in MACE was not significant (61.2 vs. 50%, p=0.084) because of relatively more target lesion revascularisations in the routine stent group. There was no difference in the incidence of very late stent thrombosis (1.7 vs. 3.4%, p=0.439). The only independent predictor of MACE was beta-blocker use (RR 0.62 [0.431; 0.892] p=0.010).Conclusion. In selective patients with NSTE-ACS, routine stenting was more beneficial than provisional stenting for a period of up to five years, driven by a reduction in repeat revascularisation procedures. After this period, the benefit was no longer significant. Beta-blocker use was the only independent predictor of MACE throughout the complete follow-up period. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:307-13.).