Trial reportChinese medical journal2016
Randomized Comparison of the Crush Versus the Culotte Stenting for Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Advancements in Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Techniques: Insights From Computational and Bench Testing Studies.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025Review
- Coronary Bifurcation Stenting: Review of Current Techniques and Evidence.Current cardiology reviews · 2023Review
- An Approach to Non-left Main Bifurcation Lesions: A Contemporary Review.US cardiology · 2023Review
- The Cone Flare Crush Modified-T (CFCT) stenting technique for coronary artery bifurcation lesions.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2020Article
- In-stent Anchoring Facilitating Side-branch Balloon Delivery for Final Kissing: A Prospective, Single-center Registry Study.Chinese medical journal · 2016Article
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Bifurcation: How Can We Outperform the Provisional Strategy?Clinical cardiology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.