Comparison of self-expanding and balloon-expandable stents for the reduction of restenosis

To compare the efficacy of self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) stents in native coronary arteries, we randomly assigned 1,096 patients with new and restenotic lesions to receive either device. Baseline demographics and coronary angiographic characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, bypass surgery, and repeat intervention was similar for both groups at 1 month (2.9% vs 3.1% for SE vs BE, respectively) and at 9 months (19.3% vs 20.1%, SE vs BE respectively). In a subgroup of patients who underwent follow-up angiography (n = 250), the binary restenosis rates (24.2% vs 18.7%, p = 0.30), late loss (0.98 vs 94 mm, p = 0.60), and loss index (0.55 vs 55, p = 0.95) were not significantly different for both groups. In 62 patients who underwent intravascular ultrasound examination (IVUS), there was a trend toward a lower incidence of edge tears in the SE group (6% vs 23%, p = 0.06). Follow-up IVUS analysis showed that the minimum stent area of the SE stent increased by 33% at 6 months, whereas no change occurred in the BE stents; this was accompanied by a greater degree of intimal proliferation in the SE stents compared with BE stents (3.1 ± 2.0 vs 1.7 ± 1.7 mm2). Thus, the SE stents had similar clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with lesions in native coronary arteries.