Journals / The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology / 2022 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 7

Comparison of Sequential POT-Side-POT and Kissing Balloon Techniques in Patients with Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated with Single-Stent Strategy; Which One is Simple and Safe? Propensity Score Analysis

Pages
559–566
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: POT-side-POT may be a simple and safe technique with a shorter procedure time and lower incidence of adverse clinical events in non-complex coronary bifurcation lesions treated with single-stent strategy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: It is unknown whether the novel POT-side-POT technique is more useful than the commonly preferred kissing balloon inflation in patients with non-complex coro- nary bifurcation lesions treated with a single-stent strategy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of POT-side-POT and kissing balloon inflation techniques in one- stent strategy for non-complex coronary bifurcation lesions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: POT-side-POT may be a simple and safe technique with a shorter procedure time and lower incidence of adverse clinical events in non-complex coronary bifurcation lesions treated with single-stent strategy.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: It is unknown whether the novel POT-side-POT technique is more useful than the commonly preferred kissing balloon inflation in patients with non-complex coro- nary bifurcation lesions treated with a single-stent strategy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of POT-side-POT and kissing balloon inflation techniques in one- stent strategy for non-complex coronary bifurcation lesions. Methods: In this study, 283 patients were retrospectively analyzed (POT-side-POT group, n = 149; KBI group, n = 134). Primary endpoints of the study were defined as follows: in- hospital and 30-day mortality, contrast-induced acute kidney injury, stent thrombosis, side branch dissection, and need for side-branch stenting. Characteristics of patients at baseline were balanced by using propensity score inverse probability weighting. Results: Procedure time (minute, 30.6 ± 8.5 vs. 34.3 ± 11.6; P = .003) and contrast volume (milliliter, 153.7 ± 42.4 vs. 171.1 ± 58.2; P = .004) were significantly lower in POT-side-POT group. Besides, side branch residual stenosis and number of patients with >50% side branch residual stenosis remained significantly higher in POT-side-POT group both in general and true bifurcation subgroup analysis (20.3 ± 19.8% vs. 16.5 ± 16.4%, P = .022; 11.9% vs. 5.7%, P = .013 and 24.1 ± 23.2% vs. 18.8 ± 18.7%, P = .033; 17.6% vs. 6.6%, P = .005; respectively). Combined clinical adverse outcomes were similar between groups. Side branch dissection (10.2% vs. 20.1%, P = .001) and need for side branch stenting (12.6% vs. 19%, P = .040) reached statistically significance in kissing balloon inflation group after adjustment. Conclusion: POT-side-POT may be a simple and safe technique with a shorter procedure time and lower incidence of adverse clinical events in non-complex coronary bifurcation lesions treated with single-stent strategy.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çetinkal, G., Koçaş, B. B., Keskin, K., Kilci, H., Ser, Ö. S., Kılıçkesmez, K. (2022). Comparison of Sequential POT-Side-POT and Kissing Balloon Techniques in Patients with Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated with Single-Stent Strategy; Which One is Simple and Safe? Propensity Score Analysis. The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 7, 559–566. https://ajindex.com/articles/597212

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Latib A, Colombo A. Bifurcation disease: what do we know, what should we do? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008
  2. 1(3):218-226. [CrossRef] 2. Iakovou I, Ge L, Colombo A. Contemporary stent treatment of coronary bifurcations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005
  3. 46(8):1446-1455. [CrossRef] 3. Burzotta F, Lassen JF, Lefèvre T, et al. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Bifurcation Coronary Lesions.the 15th Consen- sus Document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroInter- vention. 2021
  4. 16(16):1307-1317. [CrossRef] 4. Hildick-Smith D, Lassen JF, Albiero R, et al. Consensus from the 5th European Bifurcation Club meeting. EuroIntervention. 2010
  5. 6(1):34-38. 5. Steigen TK, Maeng M, Wiseth R, et al. Randomized study on simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: the Nordic bifurcation study. Circulation. 2006
  6. 114(18):1955-1961. 6. Hildick-Smith D, de Belder AJ, Cooter N, et al. Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolvingstrategies.Circulation.2010
  7. 121(10):1235-1243.[CrossRef] 7. Zimarino M, Corazzini A, Ricci F, Di Nicola M, De Caterina R. Late thrombosis after double versus single drug-eluting stent in the treatment of coronary bifurcations: a meta-analysis of rand- omized and observational studies. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013
  8. 6(7):687-695. [CrossRef] 8. Dérimay F, Rioufol G, Aminian A, Maillard L, Finet G. Toward a sequential provisional coronary bifurcation stenting technique. From kissing balloon to re-POT sequence. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2020
  9. 113(3):199-208. [CrossRef] 9. Derimay F, Souteyrand G, Motreff P, et al. Sequential proximal optimizing technique in provisional bifurcation stenting with everolimus-eluting Bioresorbable vascular scaffold: fractal cor- onary bifurcation bench for comparative test Between absorb and XIENCE Xpedition. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016
  10. 9(13):1397- 1406. [CrossRef] 10. Finet G, Derimay F, Motreff P, et al. Comparative analysis of sequential proximal optimizing technique Versus kissing balloon inflation technique in provisional bifurcation stenting: fractal coronary bifurcation bench test. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015
  11. 8(10):1308-1317. [CrossRef] 11. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circu- lation. 2007
  12. 115(17):2344-2351. [CrossRef] 12. Chiabrando JG, Lombardi M, Vescovo GM, et al. Stenting tech- niques for coronary bifurcat