Study on DK crush versus provisional stenting technique for treatment of coronary artery bifurcation lesions

Liang Chen,Shao-liang Chen,Fei Ye,Zhong-sheng Zhu,Jun-jie Zhang,Zhi-zhong Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1673-8225.2008.44.010
2008-01-01
Abstract:Background: Whether single or double stent implantation is the optimal stenting strategy in coronary artery bifurcation lesions is unknown. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of DK crush (DK) versus provisional stenting technique (PT) for the treatment of coronary artery bifurcation lesions. Design, time and setting: Non-randomized, controlled and prospective experiment was performed at the Nanjing First Hospital between August 2006 and April 2007. Participants: Sixty-two patients with true coronary bifurcation lesions (branch diameter > 2.0 mm by visual estimation) were enrolled. Thirty-two patients were treated by PT and the other patients undergoing DK. Methods: Only Rapamycin eluting-stents were allowed to be implanted. T stent, Culotte stent or Reverse crush stent could be used if there was still more than 50% residual stenosis or dissection that could affect blood flow in PT group following routine implantation. DK group only underwent routine stent implantation. Main outcome measures: Quantifying coronary angiography dada were analyzed before and immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention as well as at 6-9 months follow-up. Major adverse cardiovascular events were recorded by telephone call after 1 year. Results: There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of baseline characteristics (P > 0.05). Patients in the DK group compared with those in the PT group were characterized by larger minimum lumen diameter at branch ostium (P < 0.01) and smaller residual stenosis (P < 0.01). At 6-9 months follow-up, no statistically significant differences were identified in minimum lumen diameter (P < 0.01), residual stenosis (P < 0.01) and late lumen loss in main vessel, but it tented to be higher in PT group compared with DK group (P > 0.05). There were no major adverse cardiovascular events developed during hospitalization in both groups. At 1 year follow-up, 1 major adverse cardiovascular event occurred in DK group and 4 developed in PT group (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both DK crush and provisional stenting techniques are effective and safe for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. But DK crush shows superior over provisional stenting because it can effectively reduce incidence of restenosis and major adverse cardiovascular events.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?