Abstract
Early deterioration of minimal luminal diameter immediately after PTCA, has been associated with an increase of late restenosis. Lesions with no early loss after PTCA have a low restenosis rate. Coronary stents reduce restenosis in lesions exhibiting early wall recoil. The purpose of the OCBAS study was to compare two strategies during coronary interventions; provision vs. elective stenting. 116 patients with good PTCA results were randomized to stent (n = 57) or to optimal PTCA (n = 59). After randomization in PTCA group, 13.5% of the patients crossed over to stent due to early loss (provisional stenting). Baseline demographic and angiographic characteristics were similar in both groups of patients. At 7.6 months, 96.6% of the entire population had a follow-up angiographic study; 98.2% in the stent and 94.9% in the PTCA group. Immediate and follow-up angiographic data showed that acute gain was significantly higher in the stent than in the PTCA group (1.95 vs. 1.5 mm; P < 0.03). However, late loss was significantly higher in the stent than the PTCA groups (0.63 +/- 0.59 vs. 0.26 +/- 0.44, respectively; P = 0.01). Hence, net gain with both techniques was similar (1.32 +/- 0.3 vs. 1.24 +/- 0.29 mm for the stent and PTCA groups respectively; P = NS). Angiographic restenosis rate at follow-up (19.2% in stent vs. 16.4% in PTCA; P = NS) and TVR (17.5 in stent vs. 13.5% in PTCA; P = NS) were also similar. Furthermore, event-free survival was 80.8% in the stent versus 83.1% in the PTCA group (P = NS). Overall costs (hospital and follow-up) were US$591,740 in the stent versus US$398,480 in the PTCA group (P < 0.02). The strategy of the PTCA with delay angiogram and provisional stent if early loss occurs, had similar restenosis rate and TVR than universal use of bare stents.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have