What question did this study set out to answer?

To determine whether a systematic complex two-stent strategy improves outcomes compared to a simple single-stent approach when using drug-eluting stents for coronary bifurcation lesions.

March 2, 2010CirculationOpen Access

Randomized Trial of Simple Versus Complex Drug-Eluting Stenting for Bifurcation Lesions

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

DHDavid Hildick‐SmithInterventional / Structural Cardiology ABAdam J. de BelderUniversity Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust NCNina CooterNational Health Service

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Randomized trial reveals simple provisional stenting lowers adverse cardiac events compared to complex two-stent strategies in bifurcation lesions, highlighting its clinical advantage.

Key Points

To determine whether a systematic complex two-stent strategy improves outcomes compared to a simple single-stent approach when using drug-eluting stents for coronary bifurcation lesions.
Randomized clinical trial (NCT 00351260) enrolling 500 patients (mean age 64±10 years; 77% male) with significant coronary bifurcation lesions (82% true bifurcations).
Participants were randomized 1:1 to either a simple strategy (main vessel stenting with optional kissing balloon dilatation or T-stenting, n=250) or a complex strategy (systematic two-stent culotte or crush techniques with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation, n=250).
The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure assessed at 9 months of follow-up.
The 9-month primary composite endpoint occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P=0.009).
Rates of myocardial infarction were significantly lower in the simple group compared to the complex group (3.6% vs 11.2%, P=0.001), as were in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (2.0% vs 8.0%, P=0.002).
The simple stenting strategy also resulted in shorter procedure duration and reduced radiation exposure compared to the complex strategy.

Cite This Study

Hildick‐Smith et al. (2010) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7e0cc3d491aa75eb151dd2 https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.888297

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

March 2, 2010CirculationOpen Access

Randomized Trial of Simple Versus Complex Drug-Eluting Stenting for Bifurcation Lesions

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

DHDavid Hildick‐SmithInterventional / Structural Cardiology ABAdam J. de BelderUniversity Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust NCNina CooterNational Health Service

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Randomized trial reveals simple provisional stenting lowers adverse cardiac events compared to complex two-stent strategies in bifurcation lesions, highlighting its clinical advantage.

Key Points

To determine whether a systematic complex two-stent strategy improves outcomes compared to a simple single-stent approach when using drug-eluting stents for coronary bifurcation lesions.
Randomized clinical trial (NCT 00351260) enrolling 500 patients (mean age 64±10 years; 77% male) with significant coronary bifurcation lesions (82% true bifurcations).
Participants were randomized 1:1 to either a simple strategy (main vessel stenting with optional kissing balloon dilatation or T-stenting, n=250) or a complex strategy (systematic two-stent culotte or crush techniques with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation, n=250).
The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure assessed at 9 months of follow-up.
The 9-month primary composite endpoint occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P=0.009).
Rates of myocardial infarction were significantly lower in the simple group compared to the complex group (3.6% vs 11.2%, P=0.001), as were in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (2.0% vs 8.0%, P=0.002).
The simple stenting strategy also resulted in shorter procedure duration and reduced radiation exposure compared to the complex strategy.

Cite This Study

Hildick‐Smith et al. (2010) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7e0cc3d491aa75eb151dd2 https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.888297

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark