ArticleCurrent cardiology reviews2026
Comparison of Different Double-Stent Implantation Techniques on Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Finite Element Analysis.
Article in Current cardiology reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study aims to investigate the impact of different double-stent methods on the structure and mechanics of coronary bifurcation lesions, providing reference indicators for clinicians in selecting an appropriate interventional procedure.
methodsThree-dimensional reconstruction of coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) image data of a patient with coronary bifurcation disease was performed. Two types of double-stent (Cullotte and Crush) procedures were simulated, and their effects were evaluated using Finite element analysis. Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUS) validation and retrospective clinical analysis were performed to support computational findings.
resultsThe stress distribution following the Cullotte stent was concentrated in the SB, whereas the stress after the Crush procedure was localized at the overlap with the proximal main vessel three-layer stent. Compared with the Crush procedure, the Culotte approach resulted in a lower percentage of double-stent malapposition, better dilation of vascular stenosis, and less narrowing of the SB stent, suggesting a more favorable clinical outcome. IVUS validation and retrospective clinical analysis were performed to support computational findings. DISCUSSION: Culotte stenting resulted in better stent-vessel conformity and more favorable stress distribution. The findings support FEA as a valuable tool in procedural planning.
conclusionThe findings suggest that the Culotte technique may offer mechanical advantages over the Crush technique, potentially improving long-term clinical outcomes. These results emphasize the role of computational modeling in optimizing interventional strategies.
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.