Abstract
Background-In a number of coronary bifurcation lesions, both the main vessel and the side branch need stent coverage. Using sirolimus eluting stents, we compared 2 dedicated bifurcation stent techniques, the crush and the culotte techniques in a randomized trial with separate clinical and angiographic end-points. Methods and Results-A total of 424 patients with a bifurcation lesion were randomized to crush (n=209) and culotte (n=215) stenting. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis after 6 months. At 6 months there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac event rates between the groups; crush 4.3%, culotte 3.7% (P=0.87). Procedure and fluoroscopy times and contrast volumes were similar in the 2 groups. The rates of procedure-related increase in biomarkers of myocardial injury were 15.5% in crush versus 8.8% in culotte group (P=0.08). A total of 324 patients had a quantitative coronary assessment at the index procedure and after 8 months. The angiographic end-points of in-segment and in-stent restenosis of main vessel and/or side branch after 8 months were found in 12.1% versus 6.6% (P=0.10) and in 10.5% versus 4.5% (P=0.046) in the crush and culotte groups, respectively. Conclusions-Both the crush and the culotte bifurcation stenting techniques were associated with similar and excellent clinical and angiographic results. Angiographically, there was a trend toward less in-segment restenosis and significantly reduced in-stent restenosis following culotte stenting. (Circ Cardiovasc Intervent. 2009;2:27-34.) © 2009 American Heart Association, Inc.
Author supplied keywords
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Erglis, A., Kumsars, I., Niemelä, M., Kervinen, K., Maeng, M., Lassen, J. F., … Thuesen, L. (2009). Randomized comparison of coronary bifurcation stenting with the crush versus the culotte technique using sirolimus eluting stents the nordic stent technique study. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.108.804658
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.