Our aim was to compare direct stenting (DS) with conventional stenting (CS) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and ISI web of science for eligible studies. Primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in short term. Secondary end points were 1-year mortality and after-procedural no-reflow phenomenon. Twelve trials in 8998 patients were included. The odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model. Short-term MACEs were significantly reduced in the DS arm in contrast to the CS (5.00% vs 8.08%, DS vs CS, respectively, OR [95% confidence interval] = 0.61 [0.46-0.80], P = .0004). One-year mortality and after-procedural no-reflow phenomenon were significantly lower in the DS group. No heterogeneity was observed through I2 test (Phet = .81, .89, and .77 for each end point, respectively). This meta-analysis demonstrated that in selected patients with ACS, DS is not only safe and feasible but also reduces short-term and 1-year mortality as well as the occurrence of after-procedural no-reflow phenomenon.
ConnollyMMenownIB. Key advances in clinical cardiology. Adv Ther. 2013;30(4):369–386.
4.
BarbatoEMarcoJWijnsW. Direct stenting. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(5):394–403.
5.
Silva-OrregoPBigiRColomboP. Direct stenting after thrombus removal before primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. J Interv Cardiol. 2008;21(4):300–306.
6.
DudekDMieleckiWBurzottaF. Thrombus aspiration followed by direct stenting: a novel strategy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Results of the Polish-Italian-Hungarian RAndomized ThrombEctomy Trial (PIHRATE Trial). Am Heart J. 2010;160(5):966–972.
7.
CaputoRPFlatelyMHoKKBaimDS. Safety and effectiveness of stent implantation without predilation for small coronary arteries. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;59(4):455–458.
8.
BritoFJCaixetaAMPerinMA. Comparison of direct stenting versus stenting with predilation for the treatment of selected coronary narrowings. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89(2):115–120.
9.
ElbazMElMEKhalifeK. Is direct coronary stenting the best strategy for long-term outcome? Results of the multicentric randomized benefit evaluation of direct coronary stenting (BET) study. Am Heart J. 2002;144(4):E7.
10.
BurzottaFTraniCPratiF. Comparison of outcomes (early and six-month) of direct stenting with conventional stenting (a meta-analysis of ten randomized trials). Am J Cardiol. 2003;91(7):790–796.
11.
PiscioneFPiccoloRCasseseS. Is direct stenting superior to stenting with predilation in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention? Results from a meta-analysis of 24 randomised controlled trials. Heart. 2010;96(8):588–594.
12.
WellsGSheaBO’ConnellD. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Web site. www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. 2013;7(5):e2195. Published 2011. Accessed December 15, 2014.
13.
HigginsJThompsonS. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–1558.
14.
HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJAltmanDG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560.
15.
EggerMDaveySGSchneiderMMinderC. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634.
16.
EggerMSmithGD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998;316(7124):61–66.
17.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.
18.
AntoniucciDValentiRMiglioriniA. Direct infarct artery stenting without predilation and no-reflow in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2001;142(4):684–690.
19.
LoubeyreCMoriceMCLefevreTPiéchaudJFLouvardYDumasP. A randomized comparison of direct stenting with conventional stent implantation in selected patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(1):15–21.
20.
SabatierRHamonMZhaoQM. Could direct stenting reduce no-reflow in acute coronary syndromes? A randomized pilot study. Am Heart J. 2002;143(6):1027–1032.
21.
SuselbeckTTurkogluALangS. Direct versus conventional stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndrome just before the era of drug-eluting stents. Int J Cardiol. 2005;105(1):85–89.
22.
CuellasCFernandez-VazquezFMartinezG. Direct Stent Implantation in Acute Myocardial Infarction. The DISCO 3 Study. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2006;59(3):217–224.
23.
OzdemirRSezginATBarutcuITopalEGulluHAcikgozN. Comparison of direct stenting versus conventional stent implantation on blood flow in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Angiology. 2006;57(4):453–458.
24.
GasiorMGierlotkaMLekstonA. Comparison of outcomes of direct stenting versus stenting after balloon predilation in patients with acute myocardial infarction (DIRAMI). Am J Cardiol. 2007;100(5):798–805.
25.
TacoyGYaziciGEErdenM. The comparison of early and late outcome of direct and conventional stenting of patients with st elevation myocardial infarction. Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;3(3):181–186.
26.
MöckelMVollertJLanskyAJ. Comparison of direct stenting with conventional stent implantation in acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108(12):1697–1703.
27.
IsikTAyhanEUyarelH. A comparison of direct versus conventional stenting in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Coron Artery Dis. 2012;23(5):348–353.
28.
DziewierzASiudakZRakowskiT. Impact of direct stenting on outcome of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (from the EUROTRANSFER registry). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;84(6):925–931.
29.
MccormickLMBrownAJRingLS. Direct stenting is an independent predictor of improved survival in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2014;3(4):340–346.
30.
ThygesenKAlpertJSJaffeAS. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(20):2551–2567.
ItoHTomookaTSakaiN. Lack of myocardial perfusion immediately after successful thrombolysis. A predictor of poor recovery of left ventricular function in anterior myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1992;85(5):1699–1705.
33.
KaulS. The “no reflow” phenomenon following acute myocardial infarction: mechanisms and treatment options. J Cardiol. 2014;64(2):77–85.
34.
StoneGWCoxDGarciaE. Normal flow (TIMI-3) before mechanical reperfusion therapy is an independent determinant of survival in acute myocardial infarction: analysis from the primary angioplasty in myocardial infarction trials. Circulation. 2001;104(6):636–641.
35.
MehtaRHHarjaiKJCoxD. Clinical and angiographic correlates and outcomes of suboptimal coronary flow inpatients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(10):1739–1746.
36.
HarrisonRWAggarwalAOuFS. Incidence and outcomes of no-reflow phenomenon during percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(2):178–184.
37.
ValgimigliMCampoGMalaguttiP. Persistent coronary no flow after wire insertion is an early and readily available mortality risk factor despite successful mechanical intervention in acute myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis from the STRATEGY (Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and MULTISTRATEGY (Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study) trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(1):51–62.
38.
EarlTJAbbottJD. Direct stenting: soft endpoints are enough. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81(6):957–958.
39.
MoriceMCSerruysPWSousaJE. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(23):1773–1780.
40.
GrubeESilberSHauptmannKE. TAXUS I: six- and twelve-month results from a randomized, double-blind trial on a slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent for de novo coronary lesions. Circulation. 2003;107(1):38–42.
41.
OrmistonJAMahmudETurcoMA. Direct stenting with the TAXUS Liberte drug-eluting stent: results from the Taxus Atlas Direct Stent Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1(2):150–160.
42.
AbbottJDEarlTVlachosHE. Direct stenting compared to balloon predilation in drug-eluting stents: one-year outcomes from the DEScover Registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79(1):84–89.
43.
GilchristIC. Direct stenting is also reasonable in DES. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79(1):90.
44.
HoffmannRTakimoglu-BoerekciMLangenbergR. Randomized comparison of direct stenting with predilatation followed by stenting on vessel trauma and restenosis. Am Heart J. 2004;147(4):E13.
45.
KatsikiNAthyrosVGKaragiannisAMikhailidisDP. Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: An “All or None” Phenomenon?Angiology. 2014;66(6):508–513.
