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 bifurcationlesions treated with single-stent strategy.
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 bifurcationlesions treated with single-stent strategy.
Authors: Donald E Cutlip; Stephan Windecker; Roxana Mehran; Ashley Boam; David J Cohen; Gerrit-Anne van Es; P Gabriel Steg; Marie-angèle Morel; Laura Mauri; Pascal Vranckx; Eugene McFadden; Alexandra Lansky; Martial Hamon; Mitchell W Krucoff; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Antonios P Antoniadis; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Jolanda J Wentzel; Michael Joner; George D Giannoglou; Renu Virmani; Yiannis S Chatzizisis Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2015 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Juan G Chiabrando; Marco Lombardi; Giovanni M Vescovo; George F Wohlford; Rachel A Koenig; Antonio Abbate; Luis A Guzmán; Daniel H Berrocal; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: David Hildick-Smith; Adam J de Belder; Nina Cooter; Nicholas P Curzen; Tim C Clayton; Keith G Oldroyd; Lorraine Bennett; Steve Holmberg; James M Cotton; Peter E Glennon; Martyn R Thomas; Philip A Maccarthy; Andreas Baumbach; Niall T Mulvihill; Robert A Henderson; Simon R Redwood; Ian R Starkey; Rodney H Stables Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Enrico Romagnoli; Stefano De Servi; Corrado Tamburino; Antonio Colombo; Francesco Burzotta; Patrizia Presbitero; Leonardo Bolognese; Leonardo Paloscia; Paolo Rubino; Gennaro Sardella; Carlo Briguori; Federica Ettori; Gianfranco Franco; Domenico Di Girolamo; Imad Sheiban; Luigi Piatti; Cesare Greco; Sonia Petronio; Bruno Loi; Ernesto Lioy; Alberto Benassi; Aldo Patti; Achille Gaspardone; Davide Capodanno; Giuseppe G L Biondi-Zoccai; Giuseppe Sangiorgi Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Francesco Burzotta; Jens Flensted Lassen; Thierry Lefèvre; Adrian P Banning; Yiannis S Chatzizisis; Thomas William Johnson; Miroslaw Ferenc; Sudhir Rathore; Remo Albiero; Manuel Pan; Olivier Darremont; David Hildick-Smith; Alaide Chieffo; Marco Zimarino; Yves Louvard; Goran Stankovic Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 6.534