Kuno Toshiki, Sugiyama Takehiro, Imaeda Shohei, Hashimoto Kenji, Ryuzaki Toshinobu, Yokokura Souichi, Saito Tetsuya, Yamazaki Hiroyuki, Tabei Ryota, Kodaira Masaki, Numasawa Yohei
Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, NY, USA; Department of Cardiology, Japanese Red Cross Ashikaga Hospital, Ashikaga, Japan.
Diabetes and Metabolism Information Center, Research Institute, Center for Global Health and Medicine, Japan; Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan; Department of Public Health/Health Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019 Dec;20(12):1065-1072. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2019.01.033. Epub 2019 Feb 2.
The optimal technique for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of a bifurcation lesion remains uncertain. JBT/JCT techniques are now emerging for protection of the side branch (SB). We aimed to compare jailed balloon (JBT) and jailed Corsair (JCT) techniques to the conventional jailed wire technique.
We analyzed 850 consecutive patients (995 bifurcation lesions), who underwent PCI. The bifurcation lesions were classified as jailed wire (-), jailed wire (+), JBT, and JCT. We assessed temporary thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade ≤2, permanent TIMI flow grade ≤2 in the SB, and SB occlusion related myocardial infarction and compared these endpoints with inverse probability treatment weighted analysis.
The percentage of each group is as follows: jailed wire (-); 44.7%; jailed wire (+) 50.9%; JBT 1.7%; JCT 2.7%. The Corsair could not be delivered with a stent because of severe calcifications (3.7%) and a jailed balloon was entrapped with the stent after dilatation (5.9%). Compared to the jailed wire (+), JBT/JCT had a higher percentage of true bifurcations, arterial sheath size ≥7 Fr, and a lower proportion of wire recrossing (all, P < 0.05). After adjustment, temporary and permanent TIMI flow grade ≤2 in the SB, and SB occlusion related myocardial infarction were not significantly different (OR: 1.08, CI: 0.32-3.71, P = 0.90; OR: 0.88, CI: 0.11-6.91, P = 0.91; OR: 1.94, CI: 0.23-16.5, P = 0.55 respectively).
Our data could not prove the efficacy of JBT/JCT, but revealed novel insights about these techniques. A larger study is necessary to prove the efficacy of JBT/JCT.
分叉病变经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的最佳技术仍不确定。用于保护分支血管(SB)的JBT/JCT技术正在兴起。我们旨在比较球囊锚定技术(JBT)和Corsair导管锚定技术(JCT)与传统的导丝锚定技术。
我们分析了连续850例接受PCI的患者(995处分叉病变)。分叉病变分为导丝锚定(-)、导丝锚定(+)、JBT和JCT。我们评估了心肌梗死溶栓(TIMI)血流分级≤2级、SB内永久性TIMI血流分级≤2级以及与SB闭塞相关的心肌梗死,并通过逆概率加权分析比较了这些终点。
每组的百分比分别为:导丝锚定(-):44.7%;导丝锚定(+)50.9%;JBT 1.7%;JCT 2.7%。由于严重钙化(3.7%),Corsair导管无法与支架一起输送,球囊在扩张后被支架包裹(5.9%)。与导丝锚定(+)相比,JBT/JCT的真性分叉、动脉鞘尺寸≥7 Fr的比例更高,导丝再次通过的比例更低(所有P均<0.05)。调整后,SB内暂时性和永久性TIMI血流分级≤2级以及与SB闭塞相关的心肌梗死无显著差异(OR分别为:1.08,CI:0.32 - 3.71,P = 0.90;OR:0.88,CI:0.11 - 6.91,P = 0.91;OR:1.94,CI:0.23 - 16.5,P = 0.55)。
我们的数据无法证明JBT/JCT的有效性,但揭示了关于这些技术的新见解。需要更大规模的研究来证明JBT/JCT的有效性。