Cardiovascular outcomes of complex bifurcation lesions following double kissing crush or nano‐crush techniques: The multicenter EVOLUTE‐CRUSH V study

Author:

Çizgici Ahmet Yaşar1,Güner Ahmet1ORCID,Alizade Elnur2,Çetin İlyas3,Serin Ebru4,Doğan Abdullah1ORCID,Gökçe Kaan1,Serter Berkay1,Çiloğlu Koray1,Kahraman Serkan1ORCID,Uysal Hande1,Çörekçioğlu Büşra1,Demirci Gökhan1ORCID,Tanık Veysel Ozan5,Aktürk Faruk1,Keskin Kudret4ORCID,Püşüroğlu Hamdi3,Akman Cemalettin1ORCID,Yıldız Mustafa1,Ertürk Mehmet1,Uzun Fatih1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Cardiology Istanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital Istanbul Turkey

2. Department of Cardiology Koşuyolu Kartal Heart Training & Research Hospital Istanbul Turkey

3. Department of Cardiology Basaksehir Cam & Sakura City Hospital Istanbul Turkey

4. Department of Cardiology Şişli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital Istanbul Turkey

5. Department of Cardiology Ankara Etlik City Hospital Ankara Turkey

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundDouble kissing crush (DKC) and nano‐crush (NC) techniques are frequently used, but the comparison for both techniques is still lacking. The goal of this multicenter study was to retrospectively assess the midterm clinical results of DKC and NC stenting in patients with complex bifurcation lesions (CBLs).MethodsA total of 324 consecutive patients [male: 245 (75.6%), mean age: 60.73 ± 10.21 years] who underwent bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention between January 2019 and May 2023 were included. The primary endpoint defined as the major cardiovascular events (MACE) included cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed to reduce treatment selection bias. This is the first report comparing the clinical outcomes of DKC and NC stenting in patients with CBL.ResultsThe initial revascularization strategy was DKC in 216 (66.7%) cases and NC in 108 (33.3%) patients. SYNTAX scores [25.5 ± 6.73 vs. 23.32 ± 6.22, p = 0.005] were notably higher in the NC group than the DKC group. The procedure time (76.98 ± 25.1 vs. 57.5 ± 22.99 min, p = 0.001) was notably higher in the DKC group. The incidence of MACE (18.5 vs. 9.7%, p = 0.025), clinically driven TLR (14.8 vs. 6%, p = 0.009), and TVMI (10.2 vs. 4.2%, p = 0.048) were notably higher in the NC group than in the DKC group. The midterm MACE rate in the overall population notably differed between the NC group and the DKC group (adjusted HR (IPW): 2.712, [95% CI: 1.407−5.228], p = 0.003).ConclusionIn patients with CBLs, applying the DKC technique for bifurcation treatment had better ischemia‐driven outcomes than the NC technique.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3