Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26904982›Full record

Trial reportChinese medical journal2016

Randomized Comparison of the Crush Versus the Culotte Stenting for Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions.

Xu-Wei Zheng, Dong-Hui Zhao, Hong-Yu Peng, Qian Fan, Qin Ma, Zhen-Ye Xu, Chao Fan, Li-Yu Liu, Jing-Hua Liu

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Chinese medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Advancements in Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Techniques: Insights From Computational and Bench Testing Studies.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Xu-Wei Zheng
Dong-Hui Zhao
Hong-Yu Peng
Qian Fan
Qin Ma
Zhen-Ye Xu
Chao Fan
Li-Yu Liu
Jing-Hua LiuDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing 100029, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe crush and the culotte stenting were both reported to be effective for complex bifurcation lesion treatment. However, their comparative performance remains elusive.

methodsA total of 300 patients with coronary bifurcation lesions were randomly assigned to crush (n = 150) and culotte (n = 150) treatment. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 12 months including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization. Index lesion restenosis at 12 months was a secondary endpoint. The surface integrals of time-averaged wall shear stress at bifurcation sites were also be quantified.

resultsThere were no significant differences in MACE rates between the two groups at 12-month follow-up: Crush 6.7%, culotte 5.3% (P = 0.48). The rates of index lesion restenosis were 12.7% versus 6.0% (P = 0.047) in the crush and the culotte groups, respectively. At 12-month follow-up, the surface integrals of time-averaged wall shear stress at bifurcation sites in the crush group were significantly lower than the culotte group ([5.01 ± 0.95] × 10-4 Newton and [6.08 ± 1.16] × 10-4 Newton, respectively; P = 0.003).

conclusionsBoth the crush and the culotte bifurcation stenting techniques showed satisfying clinical and angiographic results at 12-month follow-up. Bifurcation lesions treated with the culotte technique tended to have lower restenosis rates and more favorable flow patterns.

Indexed as

StentsAgedCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPercutaneous Coronary Intervention

Identifiers

PMID26904982
PMCPMC4804429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.