Background Whether routine implantation of coronary stents is the best stra
tegy to treat flow-limiting coronary stenoses is unclear. An alternative ap
proach is to do balloon angioplasty and provisionally use stents only to tr
eat suboptimum results. We did a multicentre trial to compare the outcomes
of patients treated with these strategies.
Methods We randomly assigned 479 patients undergoing single-vessel coronary
angioplasty routine stent implantation or initial balloon angioplasty and
provisional stenting. We followed up patients for 6 months to determine the
composite rate of death, myocardial infarction, cardiac surgery, and targe
t-vessel revascularisation.
Results Stents were implanted in 227 (98.7%) of the patients assigned routi
ne stenting. 93 (37%) patients assigned balloon angioplasty had at least on
e stent placed because of suboptimum angioplasty results. At 6 months the c
omposite endpoint was significantly lower in the routine stent strategy (14
events, 6.1%) than with the strategy of balloon angioplasty with provision
al stenting (37 events, 14.9%, p=0.003). The cost of the initial revascular
isation procedure was higher than when a routine stent strategy was used (U
S$389 vs $339, p<0.001) but at 6 months, average per-patient hospital costs
did not differ ($10 206 vs $10 490). Bootstrap replication of 6-month cost
data showed continued economic benefit of the routine stent strategy.
Interpretation Routine stent implantation leads to better acute and long-te
rm clinical outcomes at a cost similar to that of initial balloon angioplas
ty with provisional stenting.