Department of Cardiology, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul.
Department of Cardiology, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Cardiology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey.
Coron Artery Dis. 2024 Dec 1;35(8):641-649. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000001392. Epub 2024 May 30.
Mini-crush (MC) and T-stenting and small protrusion (TAP) techniques are frequently used, but the long-term comparison of both techniques in patients with complex bifurcation lesions (CBLs) is still a debatable issue. This study sought to retrospectively evaluate the long-term outcomes of MC and TAP techniques in patients with CBLs.
A total of 271 patients [male: 202 (78.9%), mean age: 58.90 ± 10.11 years] patients in whom complex bifurcation intervention was performed between 2014 and 2023 were involved. The primary endpoint was major cardiovascular events (MACE) as the combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven-target lesion revascularization. The Cox proportional hazard models were adjusted by the inverse probability weighting approach to reduce treatment selection bias.
The initial management strategy was MC in 146 patients and TAP in 125 cases. MACE occurred in 52 patients (19.2%) during a mean follow-up period of 32.43 ± 16 months. The incidence of MACE (13 vs. 26.4%, P = 0.005) and major cardiovascular and cerebral events (15.1 vs. 28.8%, P = 0.006) were significantly lower in the MC group than in the TAP group. Additionally, the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower in the MC group compared with the TAP group but did not differ significantly (2.7 vs. 8%, P = 0.059). The long-term MACE was notably higher in the TAP group than the MC group [adjusted hazard ratio (inverse probability weighted): 1.936 (95% confidence interval: 1.053-3.561), P = 0.033].
In this study involving patients with CBLs, percutaneous coronary intervention with the MC technique had better long-term outcomes than the TAP technique.
微挤压(MC)和 T 支架及小突出(TAP)技术经常被使用,但在复杂分叉病变(CBL)患者中比较两种技术的长期结果仍然是一个有争议的问题。本研究旨在回顾性评估 MC 和 TAP 技术在 CBL 患者中的长期结果。
共纳入 271 例(男性:202 例[78.9%],平均年龄:58.90±10.11 岁)于 2014 年至 2023 年期间行复杂分叉介入治疗的患者。主要终点是主要心血管事件(MACE),即心脏死亡、靶血管心肌梗死或临床驱动的靶病变血运重建的组合。采用逆概率加权法调整 Cox 比例风险模型,以减少治疗选择偏倚。
146 例患者初始治疗策略为 MC,125 例患者为 TAP。平均随访 32.43±16 个月期间,52 例患者(19.2%)发生 MACE。MC 组 MACE(13 例 vs. 26.4%,P=0.005)和主要心血管和脑事件(15.1 例 vs. 28.8%,P=0.006)的发生率明显低于 TAP 组。此外,MC 组与 TAP 组相比,明确或可能的支架血栓形成发生率虽有降低但无统计学差异(2.7% vs. 8%,P=0.059)。TAP 组的长期 MACE 显著高于 MC 组[校正风险比(逆概率加权):1.936(95%可信区间:1.053-3.561),P=0.033]。
在这项涉及 CBL 患者的研究中,MC 技术经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的长期结果优于 TAP 技术。