The Use Of the Gianturco-Roubin Intracoronary Stent: the New Approaches to Coronary Intervention (NACI) Registry Experience

Abstract

The objective of this study is to compare the in-hospital and follow-up outcome in patients receiving the Gianturco-Roubin stent (GRS) who were enrolled in the New Approaches to Coronary Intervention (NACI) registry. The GRS was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August 1992 for the treatment of acute or threatened closure after a percutaneous intervention. The application of intracoronary stenting has broadened substantially in the last few years, but less is known about the use of this device for other indications. Since the NACI registry includes patients stented for other indications, a comparison of these groups with patients being stented for acute or threatened closure was undertaken. A GRS was deployed in 497 NACI registry patients. Of these, 466 patients received a GRS in 1 of 3 of the following ways: (1) 351 unplanned stenting after conventional angioplasty of the same lesion; (2) 54 after failed/suboptimal use of a new device in the same lesion; and (3) 61 in planned stenting procedures. This analysis focuses on these 3 patient subgroups and compares their in-hospital outcome and subsequent follow-up to 1 year. There were 520 stented segments in the 466 patients. The group with stenting after failed/suboptimal new-device use had a higher incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiogenic shock than either the patients with unplanned stenting after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or planned stenting (MI 22.2% vs 12.0% vs 0%, respectively, and cardiogenic shock 5.6% vs 0.9% vs 0%, respectively; p <0.05). This group also had significantly lower procedural success (58.7% vs 75.3% vs 81.5%, respectively; p <0.05). Although not statistically significant, the requirement for transfusion was higher in the unplanned and new-device stented groups than in the planned group (10.5% vs 16.7% vs 1.6%, respectively). Likewise, the incidence of Q-wave MI was higher in the new-device group (22.2% vs 12% vs 0%, respectively; p <0.05). Despite a higher, in-hospital complication rate in the unplanned groups, follow-up from discharge to 1 year showed similar outcome. In particular, percutaneous reintervention of the stented segment occurred in: 13.0% in the unplanned after new device; 17.4% in the unplanned after PTCA; and 26.2% in the planned group. Although not statistically significant, the higher incidence of percutaneous target lesion revascularization in the planned group probably represents the greater incidence of restenotic lesions in this cohort. In this very heterogeneous group of patients, including those with failure of another new device, the use of the GRS is associated with acceptable in-hospital and follow-up complication rates, although complications were clearly greater when unplanned use of the stent was needed, particularly after failure of another new device. Although the experience is small, patients having the GRS placed in an elective fashion, i.e., the planned group, appear to experience lower in-hospital complication rates, although they have a higher rate of subsequent target lesion revascularization, in this group of predominantly restenotic lesions.