A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Conventional Stenting Versus Direct Stenting in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: Direct stenting (DS) is commonly used during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to prevent distal embolization; however, no guideline recommendations exist regarding DS. We sought to compare DS with conventional stenting (CS) in patients presenting with AMI in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Studies were identified from EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases. To be included, randomized controlled trials must have compared DS with CS in patients with AMI. Data were extracted and articles were critically appraised by two authors. A fixed effects model was used, with Peto odds ratios (ORs). The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: Five trials (n = 754) met the eligibility criteria. ST-segment resolution occurred in 68.9% (146/212) in the DS group vs 60.2% (127/211) in the CS group (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.00-2.27; P=.05; I²=52%). No-reflow occurred in 6.6% in the DS group compared with 6.9% in the CS group (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.39-1.55; P=.48; I²=0%). DS was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of in-hospital cardiovascular death (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.77; P=.02; I²=0%). No significant differences were observed in myocardial infarction (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.09-1.51; P=.17; I²=7%) or target lesion revascularization (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.36-3.97; P=.76; I²=0%). CONCLUSION: Small trials suggest a potential benefit to DS in AMI. Further large-scale randomized trials are warranted to confirm the benefit of this approach.
