Six‐month Follow‐up of Successful Stenting for Acute Dissection After Coronary Angioplasty: Comparison Between Slotted Tube (Palmaz‐Schatz) and Flexible Coil (Gianturco‐Roubin) Stent Designs

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence that two different stent designs may have in late outcome following successful coronary stent implantation for acute dissection after balloon angioplasty. In the present study, 50 consecutive patients were matched to compare late outcome between the use of slotted tube (Palmaz‐Schatz) and flexible coil (Gianturco‐Roubin) stent designs (25 in each group). Group matching was performed according to vessel size, location of target lesion, and dissection type among patients undergoing successful coronary stenting to treat an acute dissection following balloon coronary angioplasty. Poststent minimal luminal diameter (2.46 ± 0.49 mm vs 2.35 ± 0.47 mm, not significant [NS]) and acute luminal gain (2.02 ± 0.61 mm vs 1.85 ± 0.56 mm, NS) were similar in slotted tube and flexible coil stent groups, respectively. However, at 6‐month follow‐up, late loss in luminal diameter was larger in lesions treated with a flexible coil stent (0.96 ± 0.75 mm vs 0.62 ± 0.55 mm, P = 0.05), and minimal luminal diameter was smaller in those lesions treated with a flexible coil stent (1.38 ± 0.87 mm vs 1.84 ± 0.63 mm, P < 0.05). Angiographic restenosis (> 50% diameter narrowing) occured in four lesions treated with a slotted tube stent (16%) compared to ten lesions treated with a flexible coil stent (40%, P < 0.05). The design of the coronary stent may have significant influence in the late lesion outcome. In patients with acute dissection following balloon coronary angioplasty, use of a slotted tube stent design (Palmaz‐Schatz) may result in lower late loss and larger luminal diameter at 6‐month follow‐up than use of a flexible coil stent design (Gianturco‐Roubin).