Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013;77(1):73-80.
doi: 10.1253/circj.cj-12-0272. Epub 2012 Sep 25.

Crush, culotte, T and protrusion: which 2-stent technique for treatment of true bifurcation lesions? - insights from in vitro experiments and micro-computed tomography

Affiliations
Free article
Comparative Study

Crush, culotte, T and protrusion: which 2-stent technique for treatment of true bifurcation lesions? - insights from in vitro experiments and micro-computed tomography

Nicolas Foin et al. Circ J. 2013.
Free article

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention of complex true bifurcation lesions often fails to ensure continuous stent coverage and strut apposition in both the side branch and main vessel. Struts left unopposed floating in the lumen disturb blood flow and are increasingly recognized as increasing the risk of stent thrombosis.

Methods and results: In this study, we compared the results of different bifurcation treatment strategies: Crush (n=5); Culotte (n=3); T-/T with Protrusion (TAP) (n=4) using drug-eluting stents deployed in-vitro in representative coronary bifurcation models. After final kissing balloon post-dilatation, the rate of malapposition within the bifurcation quantified from micro-computed tomography scanning was on average 41.5 ± 8.2% with the Crush technique, reduced to respectively 31.4 ± 5.2% with Culotte and 36.7 ± 8.0% with T-/TAP approach. Overlaying layers of struts in the Crush and Culotte techniques lead to a significantly higher rate of strut malapposition in the proximal vessel than with the T-/TAP technique (Crush: 39.1 ± 10.7%, Culotte: 26.1 ± 7.7%, TAP: 4.2 ± 7.2%, P<0.01). Maximal wall-malapposed strut distance was also found on average to be higher with the Crush (1.36 ± 0.4mm) and Culotte techniques (1.32 ± 0.1mm) than with T-/TAP (1.08 ± 0.1mm, P=0.04).

Conclusions: In this model, the Crush technique resulted in a higher risk of malapposition than either the Culotte or T-/TAP technique.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms