Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27785622›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2017

Evaluation of bifurcation stenting techniques at Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven in 2013.

S J L Leus, E van Hagen, F M Zimmermann, L X van Nunen, M van 't Veer, J Koolen, N H J Pijls

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bifurcation PCI: keep it safe and simple!Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2017
    Article
  2. Stenting of bifurcation lesions.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2017
    Article
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

7 authors.

S J L LeusDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
E van HagenDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
F M ZimmermannDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
L X van NunenDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
M van 't VeerDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
J KoolenDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
N H J PijlsDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. nico.pijls@inter.nl.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of bifurcation lesions can be performed using various techniques. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcome of various techniques of bifurcation stenting in all patients undergoing bifurcation stenting at one large intervention centre in 2013, taking into account that more complex lesions might more often warrant a two-stent technique. METHODS AND

resultsThis retrospective study included 260 consecutive patients who underwent non-primary PCI of a bifurcation lesion at the Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, in 2013. Patients were classified into two groups: one-stent technique (provisional stenting), and two-stent techniques (culotte, crush and T‑stenting). The primary endpoint was the rate of restenosis at 1 year. The secondary endpoints were procedural complications (side branch occlusion, periprocedural infarction, and death) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year. Periprocedural complications occurred in 15 patients (5.8 %) with no difference between the groups (p = 0.27). After 1 year, restenosis occurred in 3.2 % of the patients in the one-stent technique group and 7.3 % in the two-stent technique group (p = 0.20). MACE at 1 year did not differ between the groups at 11.9 % and 12.2 % respectively (p = 1.00).

conclusionsThis study shows that there is no significant difference between restenosis rate, or any other outcome parameter, with the different techniques of bifurcation stenting. Since provisional stenting is the simplest, most straightforward and cheapest approach, if technically feasible this technique has our preference as the initial approach, and an upgrade can be considered if the result is insufficient.

Indexed as

BifurcationCrushCulottePercutaneous coronary interventionProvisional stentingStentingT-stenting

Identifiers

PMID27785622
PMCPMC5179365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.