10-Year Outcomes of Deferred or Conventional Stent Implantation in Patients With STEMI (DANAMI-3-DEFER)
Primary result · Composite of hospitalization for heart failure or all-cause mortalityResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 0.82 95% CI 0.67–1.02Authors' conclusion
Deferred stenting did not reduce all-cause mortality or the composite primary outcome after 10 years but reduced hospitalization for heart failure compared with conventional PCI.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and acute chest pain <12 hoursrandomized
- Participants
- 1,215 patients
- Comparison
- Deferred stenting versus conventional percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
- Deferred stentingn = 603
- Conventional PCIn = 612reference
- Primary endpoint
- Composite of:
- Hospitalization for heart failure
- All-cause mortality
- Follow-up
- 10 years
Methodological details4 PCI centers in Denmark
- 4 PCI centers in Denmark
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
0.82
95% CI 0.67–1.02
P = 0.08
Deferred stenting vs conventional PCI
hazard ratio 0.82 (95% CI 0.67–1.02); P = 0.08
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Deferred stenting | Conventional PCI | Estimate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All-cause mortality · 10 years | 24% | 25% | hazard ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.75–1.19) | |
| Hospitalization for heart failure · 10 years | odds ratio 0.58 (95% CI 0.39–0.88) | |||
| Target vessel revascularization · 10 yearsSimilar in both groups | odds ratio 1.20 (95% CI 0.81–1.79) | |||
| 0.20.5125Ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
10-Year Outcomes of Deferred or Conventional Stent Implantation in Patients With STEMI (DANAMI-3-DEFER). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. Published 20 May 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →