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
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.
KeywordsLeft main PCI Stent Crush Interventional
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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.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.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.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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.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
- 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.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
- 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