Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing deferred stenting strategy versus the conventional approach with immediate stenting in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND: Deferring stent after mechanical flow restoration has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of "no reflow" in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Conflicting evidence is available currently, especially after the recent publication of three randomized clinical trials. METHODS: Searches in electronic databases were performed. Comparisons between the two strategies were performed for both hard clinical endpoints (all cause-mortality, cardiovascular mortality, unplanned revascularization, myocardial infarction and readmission for heart failure) and surrogate angiographic endpoints (TIMI flow < 3 and myocardial blush grade (MBG) < 2). RESULTS: Eight studies (three randomized and five non-randomized) were deemed eligible, accounting for a total of 2101 patients. No difference in terms of hard clinical endpoints was observed between deferred and immediate stenting (OR [95% CI]: 0.79 [0.54-1.15], for all-cause mortality; odds ratio (OR) [95% CI]: 0.79 [0.47-1.31] for cardiovascular mortality; OR [95% CI]: 0.95 [0.64-1.41] for myocardial infarction; OR [95% CI]: 1.37 [0.87-2.16], for unplanned revascularization and OR [95% CI]: 0.50 [0.21-1.17] for readmission for heart failure). Notably, the deferred stenting approach was associated with improved outcome of the surrogate angiographic endpoints (OR [95% CI]: 0.43 [0.18-0.99] of TIMI flow < 3 and OR [95% CI]: 0.25 [0.11-0.57] for MBG < 2. CONCLUSIONS: A deferred stenting strategy could be a feasible alternative to the conventional approach with immediate stenting in "selected" STEMI patients undergoing pPCI.

Original publication




Journal article


J Interv Cardiol

Publication Date





264 - 273


ST elevation myocardial infarction, deferred stenting, distal embolisation, primary percutaneous coronary intervention, thrombus burden, Humans, No-Reflow Phenomenon, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction, Stents, Treatment Outcome