Advertisement

Culotte versus the novel nano-crush technique for unprotected complex bifurcation left main stenting: difference in procedural time, contrast volume and X-ray exposure and 3-years outcomes

  • Gianluca RigatelliEmail author
  • Marco Zuin
  • Dobrin Vassilev
  • Huy Dinh
  • Sara Giatti
  • Mauro Carraro
  • Francesco Zanon
  • Loris Roncon
  • Ho Thuong Dung
Original Paper

Abstract

To assess the procedural performance and 3-years outcomes of unprotected complex bifurcation Left Main (LM) stenting using either Culotte or the novel nano-crush techniques, consisting in the use of two ultra-thin strut stents with a 1-ring stent crushed into the LM. We analysed the records of patients with complex distal/bifurcation LM disease and contraindications and/or refusal of bypass surgery, who from 1 January 2014 to 1 November 2017, received at operators’ discretion LM double stenting by means of nano-crush technique using Orsiro (Biotronik Inc, Bulack, Switzerland) or Onyx (Medtronic Inc, Galway, Ireland) stents or Culotte stenting using same stent platforms. Among 65 patients (28 females, mean age 77.2 ± 6.2 years), 32 received nano-crush while 33 patients received Culotte technique. Mean angles between left anterior descending coronary artery and left circumflex was 63.6 ± 21.3°. Post-operative success was achieved in 100% of cases. Nano-crush patients showed lower contrast medium volume and X-ray exposure, shorter fluoroscopy and procedural times compared to Culotte patients group. At a mean follow-up of 27.4 ± 10.8 months, clinical-driven target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death were 0 versus 4/33 (12.1%, p = 0.04), 1/32 (3.1%) versus 6/33 (18.1%, p = 0.03) and 2/32 (6.2%) versus 8/33 (24.2%, p = 0.04) in nano-crush versus Culotte patients, respectively. In this single center study, the nano-crush technique was associated with less use of contrast, less procedural time and less X-ray exposure compared to the culotte technique for the treatment of unprotected left main bifurcation lesions.

Keywords

Left main PCI Stent Crush Interventional 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Gao Z, Xu B, Yang Y, Qiao S, Wu Y, Chen T, Xu L, Yuan J, Chen J, Gao RL (2015) Comparison between one-stent versus two-stent technique for treatment of left main bifurcationlesions: a large single-center data. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 85:1132–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Higami H, Shiomi H, Niki S, Tazaki J, Imai M, Saito N, Makiyama T, Shizuta S, Shioi T, Ono K, Kimura T (2015) Long-term clinical outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left maincoronary artery disease. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 30:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pei HJ, Sui YG, Wu YJ, Yang YJ, Xu B, Chen JL, Qiao SB, Li JJ, Qin XW, Yao M, Yuan JQ, Chen J, Liu HB, You SJ, Gao RL (2013) Long-term clinical outcomes of patients with unprotected left main bifurcation lesions treated with 2-stent techniques. Chin Med J (Engl) 126:2409–2413Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen SL, Xu B, Han YL, Sheiban I, Zhang JJ, Ye F, Kwan TW, Paiboon C, Zhou YJ, Lv SZ, Dangas GD, Xu YW, Wen SY, Hong L, Zhang RY, Wang HC, Jiang TM, Wang Y, Sansoto T, Chen F, Yuan ZY, Li WM, Leon MB (2015) Clinical outcome after DK crush versus culotte stenting of distal left main bifurcation lesions: the 3-year follow-up results of the DKCRUSH-III study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8:1335–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dominici M, Arrivi A, Bazzucchi M, De Paolis M, Milici C, Bock C, Placanica A, Lazzari L, Diletti R, Boschetti E (2015) Effectiveness of novel stent platform eluting sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer in percutaneous coronary intervention. Min Cardioangiol (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang D, Xu B, Yin D, Li YP, He Y, You SJ, Qiao SB, Wu YJ, Yan HB, Yang YJ, Gao RL, Dou KF (2015) Clinical and angiographic predictors of major side branch occlusion after main vessel stenting in coronary bifurcation lesions. Chin Med J (Engl) 128(11):1471–1478.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.157654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rigatelli G, Dell’Avvocata F, Zuin M, Vassiliev D, Mazza A, Dinh HD (2017) Complex coronary bifurcation revascularization by means of very minimal crushing and ultrathin biodegradable polymer DES: feasibility and 1-year outcomes of the “Nano-crush” technique. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 18:22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roques F, Michel P, Goldstone AR, Nashef SA (2003) The logistic EUROSCORE. Eur Heart J 24:881–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, Morice MC, Colombo A, Dawkins K et al (2005) The SYNTAX Score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. Eurointervention 1:219–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Medina A, Suarez de Lezo J, Pan M (2006) A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesions. Rev Esp Cardiol 59:183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lotfi A, Jeremias A, Fearon WF, Feldman MD, Mehran R, Messenger JC, Grines CL, Dean LS, Kern MJ, Klein LW (2014) Expert consensus statement on the use of fractional flow reserve, intravascular ultrasound, and optical coherence tomography: a consensus statement of the society of cardiovascular angiography and interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 83:509–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kang SJ, Lee JY, Ahn JM, Mintz GS, Kim WJ, Park DW, Yun SC, Lee SW, Kim YH, Lee CW, Park SW, Park SJ (2011) Validation of intravascular ultrasound-derived parameters with fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary stenosis severity. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 4:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chieffo A, Latib A, Caussin C, Presbitero P, Galli S, Menozzi A, Varbella F, Mauri F, Valgimigli M, Arampatzis C, Sabate M, Erglis A, Reimers B, Airoldi F, Laine M, Palop RL, Mikhail G, Maccarthy P, Romeo F, Colombo A (2013) A prospective, randomized trial of intravascular-ultrasound guided compared to angiography guided stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: the AVIO trial. Am Heart J 165:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD, Joint (2012) ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF task force for universal definition of myocardial infarction. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:1581–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mehran R, Dangas G, Abizaid AS (1999) Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis: classification and implications for long-term outcome. Circulation 100:1872–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karrowni W, Makki N, Dhaliwal AS, Vyas A, Blevins A, Dughman S, Girotra S, Cram P, Horwitz PA (2014) Single versus double stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Invasive Cardiol 26:229–233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chevalier B, Glatt B, Royer T, Guyon P (1998) Placement of coronary stents in bifurcation lesions by the “culotte” technique. Am J Cardiol 82:943–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kervinen K, Niemelä M, Romppanen H, Erglis A, Kumsars I, Maeng M, Holm NR, Lassen JF, Gunnes P, Stavnes S, Jensen JS, Galløe A, Narbute I, Sondore D, Christiansen EH, Ravkilde J, Steigen TK, Mannsverk J, Thayssen P, Hansen KN, Helqvist S, Vikman S, Wiseth R, Aarøe J, Jokelainen J, Thuesen L, Nordic PCI Study Group (2013) Clinical outcome after crush versus culotte stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: the Nordic Stent Technique Study 36-month follow-up results. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6:1160–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen SL, Zhang Y, Xu B, Ye F, Zhang J, Tian N, Liu Z, Qian X, Ding S, Li F, Zhang A, Liu Y, Lin S (2012) Five-year clinical follow-up of unprotected left main bifurcation lesion stenting: one-stent versus two-stent techniques versus double-kissing crush technique. EuroIntervention 8:803–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen SL1, Xu B, Han YL, Sheiban I, Zhang JJ, Ye F, Kwan TW, Paiboon C, Zhou YJ, Lv SZ, Dangas GD, Xu YW, Wen SY, Hong L, Zhang RY, Wang HC, Jiang TM, Wang Y, Chen F, Yuan ZY, Li WM, Leon MB (2013) Comparison of double kissing crush versus Culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective DKCRUSH-III study. J Am Coll Cardiol 61:1482–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Foin N, Alegria-Barrero E, Torii R, Chan PH, Viceconte N, Davies JE, Di Mario C (2013) Crush, culotte, T and protrusion: which 2-stent technique for treatment of true bifurcation lesions? Insights from in vitro experiments and micro-computed tomography. Circ J 77:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Windecker S, Haude M, Neumann FJ, Stangl K, Witzenbichler B, Slagboom T, Sabaté M, Goicolea J, Barragan P, Cook S, Piot C, Richardt G, Merkely B, Schneider H, Bilger J, Erne P, Waksman R, Zaugg S, Jüni P, Lefèvre T (2015) Comparison of a novel biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: results of the randomized BIOFLOW-II trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 8:e001441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jensen LO, Thayssen P, Maeng M, Ravkilde J, Hansen HS, Jensen SE, Bøtker HE, Berencsi K, Lassen JF, Christiansen EH (2015) Randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent with a biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: rationale and study design of the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome VII trial. Am Heart J 170:210–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barragan P, Garitey V, Mouneimne K (2014) RieuR.vLongitudinal compression behaviour of coronary stents: a bench-top comparative study. EuroIntervention 9:1454–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rigatelli G, Zuin M, Dell’Avvocata F, Vassilev D, Daggubati R, Nguyen T, Van Viet Thang N, Foin N (2017) Evaluation of coronary flow conditions in complex coronary artery bifurcations stenting using computational fluid dynamics: impact of final proximal optimization technique on different double-stent techniques. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 18:233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gianluca Rigatelli
    • 1
    • 6
    Email author
  • Marco Zuin
    • 4
  • Dobrin Vassilev
    • 2
  • Huy Dinh
    • 3
  • Sara Giatti
    • 4
  • Mauro Carraro
    • 4
  • Francesco Zanon
    • 4
  • Loris Roncon
    • 4
  • Ho Thuong Dung
    • 5
  1. 1.Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Endoluminal InterventionsRovigo General HospitalRovigoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Internal DiseasesSofiaBulgaria
  3. 3.Department of Interventional CardiologyTam Duc Heart HospitalHo Chi Minh CityVietnam
  4. 4.Division of CardiologyRovigo General HospitalRovigoItaly
  5. 5.Department of CardiologyThong Nhat HospitalHo Chi Minh CityVietnam
  6. 6.Santa Maria della Misericordia HospitalRovigoItaly

Personalised recommendations