| Popis: |
INTRODUÇÃO: O benefício do implante direto de stent não está bem estabelecido na síndrome coronária aguda sem supradesnivelamento do segmento ST (SCASST). Comparamos aqui o implante de stent, com ou sem pré-dilatação (stent direto) da lesão-alvo nessa população. MÉTODOS: Registro unicêntrico, retrospectivo, que incluiu pacientes com SCASST tratados entre 2009 a 2010. Foram excluídas lesões reestenóticas, lesões em enxertos de safena ou em bifurcações. O desfecho primário foi a comparação de eventos cardíacos adversos maiores (ECAM) hospitalares e tardios. RESULTADOS: Do total de 182 pacientes avaliados, 42,3% foram tratados com stent direto. A idade da população foi de 61,1 ± 11,0 anos, sendo 67% do sexo masculino e 33,5% diabéticos. Os pacientes do grupo pré-dilatação apresentaram mais lesões do tipo C (37,1% vs. 18,2%; P 0,99). As taxas de ECAM hospitalar não diferiram entre os grupos, embora os pacientes submetidos ao implante direto tenham apresentado metade dos eventos (2,6% vs. 5,7%; P = 0,47). Ao final de 1 ano, os ECAM foram semelhantes entre os grupos (6,5% vs. 5,7%; P > 0,99 ). CONCLUSÕES: Nesta série de pacientes com SCASST, o implante direto de stent não esteve associado a melhores resultados angiográficos ou clínicos. Contudo, a complexidade da lesão permanece como fator determinante na escolha da estratégia de pré-dilatação na prática diária. BACKGROUND: The benefits of direct stenting in non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) are not clearly established. We compared stenting with or without pre-dilatation (direct stenting) of the target lesion in this population. METHODS: Single center, retrospective registry including NSTE ACS patients treated from 2009 to 2010. Stenting for bifurcations, saphenous vein grafts, and in-stent restenosis were excluded. The primary endpoint was the comparison of in-hospital and late major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: Of a total of 182 patients, 42.3% were treated by direct stenting. Mean age was 61.1 ± 11.0 years, 67% were male and 33.5% were diabetics. Patients in the pre-dilatation group had more type C lesions (37.1% vs. 18.2%; P = 0.01), smaller reference vessel diameter (2.3 [2.0-2.7] mm vs. 2.7 [2.2-3.1] mm; P = 0.01) and smaller preintervention minimal luminal diameter (0.5 [0.1-0.7] mm vs. 0.6 [0.4-1.0] mm; P < 0.01). Moderate/severe calcification was observed in 13.2% of the cases, and was equally distributed in both groups. There were no differences in the occurrence of periprocedural angiographic complications (3.9% vs. 4.8%; P = 0.99). In-hospital MACE was not different between groups, although patients submitted to direct stenting have shown half of the events (2.6% vs. 5.7%; P = 0.47). At the end of 1 year, the MACE rate was similar for the two groups (6.5% vs. 5.7%; P > 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: In this series of NSTE ACS patients, direct stenting was not associated with better angiographic or clinical outcomes. However, lesion complexity remains a determinant factor in the choice of the pre-dilatation strategy in daily practice. |
