Why the study?
Limited contemporary data exist comparing alternative upfront 2-stent approaches, particularly Minicrush versus TAP stenting, in complex coronary bifurcation lesions.
Does the Minicrush stenting technique reduce target lesion failure compared to T-stenting and minimal protrusion (TAP) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for complex coronary bifurcation lesions?
Population
469 patients undergoing PCI for complex coronary bifurcation lesions with an upfront 2-stent strategy
Comparison
Minicrush vs TAP stenting techniques
Design
Multicenter, retrospective cohort study
Follow-up
Up to 10 years
Key result
In patients with complex coronary bifurcation lesions, Minicrush and TAP had comparable target lesion failure rates, but Minicrush had lower stent thrombosis (0.8% vs 5.7%; P<0.01).
Authors
Loading...
Minicrush was associated with lower stent thrombosis than TAP without differing target lesion failure; leaves open need for randomized confirmation in bifurcation PCI.
Cohort (n=469)
Yes
Does the Minicrush stenting technique reduce target lesion failure compared to T-stenting and minimal protrusion (TAP) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for complex coronary bifurcation lesions?
Minicrush and TAP stenting techniques offer comparable long-term efficacy for complex coronary bifurcation lesions, but Minicrush is associated with a significantly lower risk of stent thrombosis.
Piedimonte et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Complex coronary bifurcation lesions (n=469). Minicrush vs. T-stenting and minimal protrusion (TAP) was evaluated on Target lesion failure. In patients with complex coronary bifurcation lesions, Minicrush and TAP had comparable target lesion failure rates, but Minicrush had lower stent thrombosis (0.8% vs 5.7%; P<0.01).