ArticleJournal of translational internal medicine2017
Comparative Computed Flow Dynamic Analysis of Different Optimization Techniques in Left Main Either Provisional or Culotte Stenting.
Article in Journal of translational internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating the Left Main Bifurcation: Which Stenting Strategy Best Minimises Major Adverse Cardiac Events and Target Lesion Revascularisation? A Network Meta-analysis.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Don't Touch My POT!Korean circulation journal · 2019Article
- Thin and crush: The new mantra in left main stenting?World journal of cardiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesProvisional and culotte are the most commonly used techniques in left main (LM) stenting. The impact of different post-dilation techniques on fluid dynamic of LM bifurcation has not been yet investigated. The aim of this study is to evaluate, by means of computational fluid dynamic analysis (CFD), the impact of different post-dilation techniques including proximal optimization technique (POT), kissing balloon (KB), POT-Side-POT and POT-KB-POT, 2-steps Kissing (2SK) and Snuggle Kissing balloon (SKB) on flow dynamic profile after LM provisional or culotte stenting.
methodsWe considered an LM-LCA-LCX bifurcation reconstructed after reviewing 100 consecutive patients (mean age 71.4 ± 9.3 years, 49 males) with LM distal disease. The diameters of LAD and LCX were modelled according to the Finnet's law as following: LM 4.5 mm, LAD 3.5 mm, LCX 2.75 mm, with bifurcation angle set up at 55°. Xience third-generation stent (Abbot Inc., USA) was reconstructed and virtually implanted in provisional/cross-over and culotte fashion. POT, KB, POT-side-POT, POT-KB-POT, 2SK and SKB were virtually applied and analyzed in terms of the wall shear stress (WSS).
resultsAnalyzing the provisional stenting, the 2SK and KB techniques had a statistically significant lower impact on the WSS at the carina, while POT seemed to obtain a neutral effect. In the wall opposite to the carina, the more physiological profile has been obtained by KB and POT with higher WSS value and smaller surface area of the lower WSS. In culotte stenting, at the carina, POT-KB-POT and 2SK had a very physiological profile; while at the wall opposite to the carina, 2SK and POT-KB-POT decreased significantly the surface area of the lower WSS compared to the other techniques.
conclusionFrom the fluid dynamic point of view in LM provisional stenting, POT, 2SK and KB showed a similar beneficial impact on the bifurcation rheology, while in LM culotte stenting, POT-KB-POT and 2SK performed slightly better than the other techniques, probably reflecting a better strut apposition.
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.