Comparison of immediate and follow-up results of the short and long NIR stent with the Palmaz-Schatz stent

The intrinsic characteristics of a stent including stent length may affect both procedural success and long-term outcome. The present study evaluated the immediate and follow-up results after implantation of the short and long NIR stent and compared these results with the Palmaz-Schatz stent. Between July 1995 and December 1996, stenting with a 16-mm NIR stent (NIR-16), a 32-mm NIR stent (NIR-32), or a Palmaz-Schatz stent (88) was performed in 68, 57, and 155 lesions, respectively. There were no significant differences in the incidences of delivery failure (PS, 2.6%: NIR-16, 4.4%; NIR-32, 5.3%; p = NS) and procedural success (PS, 92%; NIR-16, 93%; NIR-32, 93%; p NS) among the 3 groups. The reference vessel diameter was smaller in lesions with a 32-mm NIR stent than in those with a Palmaz-Schatz stent (PS, 3.14 +/- 0.58, NIR-16, 3.00 +/- 0.50; NIR-32, 2.90 +/- 0.47 mm; p <0.05). The lesion length was longer in lesions with a 32-mm NIR stent than in those with a Palmaz-Schatz or a 16-mm NIR stent (PS, 8.9 +/- 5.0; NIR-16, 11.0 +/- 4.1; NIR-32 26.1 +/- 9.7 mm; p <0.01). After the procedure, the lesions with a 32-mm NIR stent had a smaller minimal lumen diameter than those with a Palmaz-Schatz stent (PS, 3.17 +/- 0.61; NIR-16, 2.99 +/- 0.51; NIR-32, 2.89 +/- 0.49 mm; p <0.01). At follow-vp, a smaller minimal lumen diameter was observed in lesions with a 32-mm NIR stent than in those with a Palmaz-Schatz or a 16-mm NIR stent (PS, 2.32 +/- 0.98; NIR-16, 2.25 +/- 0.80; NIR-32, 1.68 +/- 0.79 mm; p <0.01). Restenosis rates were 16.5% in lesions with a Palmaz-Schatz stent, 13.3% in those with a 16-mm NIR stent, and 47.4% in those with a 32-mm NIR stent (p <0.01). Although stent delivery and procedural success of a long NIR stent were acceptable, the restenosis rate of a long NIR stent was high compared with a short NIR stent or a Palmaz-Schatz stent. (C) 1999 by Excerpta Medico, Inc.