Long-term cardiovascular outcomes after mini-crush or T and minimal protrusion techniques in complex bifurcation lesions: the EVOLUTE-CRUSH III study.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Coronary artery disease Pub Date : 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1097/MCA.0000000000001392
Ahmet Güner, Fatih Uzun, Ahmet Yaşar Çizgici, Serkan Kahraman, Gökhan Demirci, Koray Çiloğlu, Kaan Gökçe, Abdullah Doğan, Cemalettin Akman, Hande Uysal, Ezgi Gültekin Güner, İbrahim Faruk Aktürk, Mustafa Yildiz, Berkay Serter, Ahmet Arif Yalçin, Berhan Keskin, Mehmet Ertürk
{"title":"Long-term cardiovascular outcomes after mini-crush or T and minimal protrusion techniques in complex bifurcation lesions: the EVOLUTE-CRUSH III study.","authors":"Ahmet Güner, Fatih Uzun, Ahmet Yaşar Çizgici, Serkan Kahraman, Gökhan Demirci, Koray Çiloğlu, Kaan Gökçe, Abdullah Doğan, Cemalettin Akman, Hande Uysal, Ezgi Gültekin Güner, İbrahim Faruk Aktürk, Mustafa Yildiz, Berkay Serter, Ahmet Arif Yalçin, Berhan Keskin, Mehmet Ertürk","doi":"10.1097/MCA.0000000000001392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mini-crush (MC) and T-stenting and small protrusion (TAP) techniques are frequently used, but the long-term comparison of both techniques in patients with complex bifurcation lesions (CBLs) is still a debatable issue. This study sought to retrospectively evaluate the long-term outcomes of MC and TAP techniques in patients with CBLs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 271 patients [male: 202 (78.9%), mean age: 58.90 ± 10.11 years] patients in whom complex bifurcation intervention was performed between 2014 and 2023 were involved. The primary endpoint was major cardiovascular events (MACE) as the combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven-target lesion revascularization. The Cox proportional hazard models were adjusted by the inverse probability weighting approach to reduce treatment selection bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial management strategy was MC in 146 patients and TAP in 125 cases. MACE occurred in 52 patients (19.2%) during a mean follow-up period of 32.43 ± 16 months. The incidence of MACE (13 vs. 26.4%, P = 0.005) and major cardiovascular and cerebral events (15.1 vs. 28.8%, P = 0.006) were significantly lower in the MC group than in the TAP group. Additionally, the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower in the MC group compared with the TAP group but did not differ significantly (2.7 vs. 8%, P = 0.059). The long-term MACE was notably higher in the TAP group than the MC group [adjusted hazard ratio (inverse probability weighted): 1.936 (95% confidence interval: 1.053-3.561), P = 0.033].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this study involving patients with CBLs, percutaneous coronary intervention with the MC technique had better long-term outcomes than the TAP technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":10702,"journal":{"name":"Coronary artery disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Coronary artery disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCA.0000000000001392","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mini-crush (MC) and T-stenting and small protrusion (TAP) techniques are frequently used, but the long-term comparison of both techniques in patients with complex bifurcation lesions (CBLs) is still a debatable issue. This study sought to retrospectively evaluate the long-term outcomes of MC and TAP techniques in patients with CBLs.

Methods: A total of 271 patients [male: 202 (78.9%), mean age: 58.90 ± 10.11 years] patients in whom complex bifurcation intervention was performed between 2014 and 2023 were involved. The primary endpoint was major cardiovascular events (MACE) as the combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven-target lesion revascularization. The Cox proportional hazard models were adjusted by the inverse probability weighting approach to reduce treatment selection bias.

Results: The initial management strategy was MC in 146 patients and TAP in 125 cases. MACE occurred in 52 patients (19.2%) during a mean follow-up period of 32.43 ± 16 months. The incidence of MACE (13 vs. 26.4%, P = 0.005) and major cardiovascular and cerebral events (15.1 vs. 28.8%, P = 0.006) were significantly lower in the MC group than in the TAP group. Additionally, the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower in the MC group compared with the TAP group but did not differ significantly (2.7 vs. 8%, P = 0.059). The long-term MACE was notably higher in the TAP group than the MC group [adjusted hazard ratio (inverse probability weighted): 1.936 (95% confidence interval: 1.053-3.561), P = 0.033].

Conclusion: In this study involving patients with CBLs, percutaneous coronary intervention with the MC technique had better long-term outcomes than the TAP technique.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对复杂分叉病变采用迷你挤压或 T 和最小突出技术后的长期心血管预后:EVOLUTE-CRUSH III 研究。
背景:迷你粉碎(MC)和T型支架及小突起(TAP)技术经常被使用,但这两种技术在复杂分叉病变(CBL)患者中的长期效果比较仍是一个值得商榷的问题。本研究旨在回顾性评估 MC 和 TAP 技术在 CBL 患者中的长期疗效:共有 271 名患者[男性:202 人(78.9%),平均年龄:58.90 ± 10.11 岁]在 2014 年至 2023 年期间接受了复杂分叉介入治疗。主要终点是主要心血管事件(MACE),即心源性死亡、靶血管心肌梗死或临床驱动的靶病变血运重建。Cox比例危险模型采用反概率加权法进行调整,以减少治疗选择偏差:146例患者的初始治疗策略为MC,125例患者的初始治疗策略为TAP。在平均 32.43 ± 16 个月的随访期间,52 例患者(19.2%)发生了 MACE。MC组的MACE发生率(13% vs. 26.4%,P = 0.005)和主要心脑血管事件发生率(15.1% vs. 28.8%,P = 0.006)明显低于TAP组。此外,MC 组与 TAP 组相比,明确或可能的支架血栓形成发生率在数量上更低,但差异不大(2.7% 对 8%,P = 0.059)。TAP组的长期MACE明显高于MC组[调整后危险比(反概率加权):1.936(95% 置信度)]:1.936(95% 置信区间:1.053-3.561),P = 0.033]:在这项涉及 CBLs 患者的研究中,采用 MC 技术进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的长期疗效优于 TAP 技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Coronary artery disease
Coronary artery disease 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
190
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Coronary Artery Disease welcomes reports of original research with a clinical emphasis, including observational studies, clinical trials, translational research, novel imaging, pharmacology and interventional approaches as well as advances in laboratory research that contribute to the understanding of coronary artery disease. Each issue of Coronary Artery Disease is divided into four areas of focus: Original Research articles, Review in Depth articles by leading experts in the field, Editorials and Images in Coronary Artery Disease. The Editorials will comment on selected original research published in each issue of Coronary Artery Disease, as well as highlight controversies in coronary artery disease understanding and management. Submitted artcles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and​ peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.
期刊最新文献
Relationship between uric acid to albumin ratio and saphenous vein graft disease in patients with coronary artery bypass graft. Impact of prior coronary artery bypass grafting and coronary lesion complexity on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Burden of cardiovascular disease on coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalizations in the USA. Non-chest pain symptoms and likelihood of coronary occlusion in emergency department patients with ST segment elevation undergoing emergent coronary angiography. Impact of serum iron levels on in-hospital mortality and clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention: a retrospective analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1