Background Although the use of premounted stents on a delivery balloon has almost completely eliminated the initially used hand-crimping procedure, no data are available that prove the superiority of one or the other approach on a randomized basis. Therefore, this study was designed to examine whether the use of premounted stents is comparable with the hand-crimping procedure. Methods A total of 123 patients (64 treated with unmounted stents, 59 treated with premounted stents) were examined in a multicenter, randomized, prospective study. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between groups. Results Primary end points (acute, postinterventional [within 72 hours], and late complications related to the stenting procedure) were reached in 1 patient treated with an unmounted stent versus 2 patients with mounted stents (P = not significant). In patients with angiographic follow up (n = 84, mean follow-up period 6 ± 1 months), the total rate of restenosis was 27% (unmounted 12, mounted 11, P = not significant). Secondary end points were procedural success of stenting and maximal balloon inflation pressure needed for optimal stenting results by use of angiography. There were no differences in secondary end points for both techniques. The mean balloon pressure was 12.56 ± 2.1 atmospheres (unmounted) and 12.12 ± 1.92 atmospheres (mounted, P = not significant). Conclusion Stenting with premounted devices was demonstrated to have a similar clinical and angiographic outcome as the hand-crimping approach for maximal inflation pressure, procedural success, major cardiac events, and rate of restenosis after 6 months of follow up. Thus, the more convenient use of a premounted stent provides procedural safety and efficacy comparable with a hand-crimped system. (Am Heart J 2003;145:e4.)