Spot drug-eluting stenting for long coronary stenoses: long-term results of a randomized clinical study

Preliminary results of a randomized trial have suggested that total lesion coverage with drug-eluting stents (DES) is not necessary in the presence of diffuse disease of nonuniform severity. In the present study, we report long-term results of this trial.

Percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary artery disease

Patients with significant coronary artery stenoses are at increased risk of future cardiac events. However, in the absence of acute coronary syndrome or recent myocardial infarction and residual ischemia, elective percutaneous coronary intervention has not been shown to improve prognosis. Possible explanations for this might be the limited follow-up time adopted by most randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with medical therapy, limited number of patients with proven ischemia enrolled in these trials, and adoption of complex, elaborate techniques that have not proved their usefulness. Published evidence identifies certain indications for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary lesions: demonstration of significant inducible ischemia, particularly in the context of a recent myocardial infarction; detection of unequivocally reduced fractional flow reserve; and specific angiographic features of coronary stenoses. Operators should take into account long-term consequences of adopted techniques rather than immediate angiographic results. We review existing evidence and provide our recommendations in this setting.

Comparison of long versus short ("spot") drug-eluting stenting for long coronary stenoses

We compared spot drug-eluting stenting (DES) to full stent coverage for treatment of long coronary stenoses. Consecutive, consenting patients with a long (>20 mm) coronary lesion of nonuniform severity and indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to full stent coverage of the atherosclerotic lesion with multiple, overlapping stenting (full DES group, n = 90) or spot stenting of hemodynamically significant parts of the lesion only (defined as diameter stenosis >50%; spot DES group, n = 89). At 1-year follow-up, 14 patients with full DES (15.6%) and 5 patients (5.6%) with spot DES had a major adverse cardiac event (MACE; p = 0.031). At 3 years, MACEs occurred in 18 patients with full DES (20%) and 7 patients (7.8%) with spot DES (p = 0.019). Cox proportional hazard model showed that the risk for MACEs was almost 60% lower in patients with spot DES compared to those with full DES (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.98, p = 0.044). This association remained even after controlling for age, gender, lesion length, and type of stent used (hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 1.00, p = 0.05). In conclusion, total lesion coverage with DES is not necessary in the presence of diffuse disease of nonuniform severity. Selective stenting of only the significantly stenosed parts of the lesion is an appropriate therapeutic alternative in this setting, offering a favorable clinical outcome.