Culotte is better than crush for bifurcation lesions: Results from the Nordic Stent Technique study

You don't need to be Editor-In-Chief to add or edit content to WikiDoc. You can begin to add to or edit text on this WikiDoc page by clicking on the edit button at the top of this page. Next enter or edit the information that you would like to appear here. Once you are done editing, scroll down and click the Save page button at the bottom of the page.

March 29, 2008 By Vijayalakshmi Kunadian MBBS MD MRCP [1]

SCAI-ACCi2 08-Chicago, IL: Eight month angiographic follow-up in patients randomized to crush or culotte bifurcation stenting demonstrates that culotte technique might be better with reduced side branch restenosis rates.

Dr. Paal Gunnes from Feiring Klinikken, Feiring, Norway, presented the results of the Nordic Stent Technique study at the SCAI-i2 summit Annual Scientific Sessions in Chicago today.

A previous study from the Nordic Stent investigators demonstrated that the use of main branch and side branch stenting with sirolimus eluting stents was associated with increased procedural time, fluoroscopy time and an increase in post-PCI biomarker release. Hence this study recommended the use of main branch stenting only with provisional side branch stenting ^[1].

Subsequently, these investigators performed a study among patients who underwent both main and side branch stenting to determine the best stenting technique. Patients were randomized either to crush stenting or culotte stenting and underwent angiographic evaluation at eight months. The 6 month results were presented at TCT 2007 which demonstrated no difference in combined cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and stent thrombosis between the crush and culotte groups.

The present study consisted of 425 patients with bifurcation lesions randomized to treatment with drug eluting stents implanted using either a culotte [n=209 (160 had angiographic follow-up at 8 months)] or crush technique [n=215 (164 had angiographic follow-up at 8 months)].

Briefly, the culotte technique involves inserting two stents (one into the main branch and the other into the side branch) and the two stents overlap in the main branch. Whereas the crush technique involves inserting the side branch stent first so that a small segment of the side branch stent protrudes into the main branch. Upon implantation of the main branch stent it crushes the overlapping segment of the side branch stent against the intima of the main artery.

This study investigated at 8 months the following angiographic parameters:

• In-lesion >50% stenosis of the entire bifurcation
• In-stent >50% stenosis of the entire bifurcation
• In lesion >50% stenosis of main vessel (MV)
• In lesion >50% stenosis of side branch (SB)
• Late loss of MV and SB

The procedural success and the incidence of true bifurcation lesion was comparable between the crush and culotte groups [(98.8% vs. 100%) and (78% vs. 85%) respectively]. At 8 months, there were no differences in the angiographic parameters such as in-lesion >50% stenosis of the entire bifurcation (12.1% vs. 6.6%, p=0.1), in lesion >50% stenosis of MV (4.7% vs. 2.0%, p=0.16) and in lesion >50% stenosis of SB (9.2% vs. 4.5%, p=0.1)] except the rate of in-stent >50% stenosis of the entire bifurcation (10.5% vs. 4.5%, p=0.046) and late lumen loss of SB (9.8% vs. 3.8%, p=0.04) between the crush and culotte techniques respectively.

This study concluded that crush and culotte bifurcation stenting using sirolimus eluting stents were associated with low rates of restenosis at 8-month angiographic follow-up. The restenosis that occurred with the crush technique were primarily located in side branches. The investigators demonstrated that the culotte bifurcation stenting technique was associated with a reduced restenosis rate and may be preferred in suitable bifurcation anatomies. Further follow-up data is required to ascertain the risk of long term outcomes.

Source

Presented at the SCAI Annual Scientific Sessions in partnership with ACC i2 summit, March 29-April 1, 2008 Chicago

Reference

WikiDoc Help Menu Quick Start.. Get Started Here! How to Login How to Search Pages How to Start a New Page How to Edit a Page Cheat Sheet Editing basics Learning Basic Formatting How to make Links in WikiDoc & to External Sites How to Make Lists How to Ignoring Formatting Adding References or Footnotes to Articles Tracking Changes You Have Made How to Put an Article Into a Category When Multiple Topics Should Go To The Same Page (MI, Acute MI, AMI) Using Redirection Advanced editing How to Make Tables How to Insert Images and Other Media How to Add Video Help:How to Make Columns Web Colors How To Make Templates How to Move Pages Inserting Dynamic Dates and Times Inserting WikiDoc Statistics Editing the Table of Contents Communicating your edits Let others know what you changed: The importance of Edit Summaries Minor Edits Edit Conflicts Help Videos You Can Watch Getting Started Video

Acknowledgement and Attribution Regarding Sources of Content

Some of the initial content on this page may be incorporated in part from copyleft sources in the public domain including wikis such as Wikipedia and AskDrWiki. Drug information for patients came from the The National Library of Medicine. Infectious disease information may have come from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Differential Diagnoses are drawn from clinicians as well as an amalgamation of 3 sources: 1.The Disease Database; 2. Kahan, Scott, Smith, Ellen G. In A Page: Signs and Symptoms. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2004:3; 3. Sailer, Christian, Wasner, Susanne. Differential Diagnosis Pocket. Hermosa Beach, CA: Borm Bruckmeir Publishing LLC, 2002:7 .