Nguyen Ngoc Dang Hai, Viet Luong Thang, Cong Pham Nhut, Thi Nguyen Tran Hieu, Anh Hoang Tien, Anh Ho Binh, Chi Doan Thang, Minh Nguyen Hung
The Faculty of Medicine, Duy Tan University, Da Nang, Vietnam.
Cardiovascular Center, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue, Vietnam.
J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025 Jan 15;4(3Part A):102500. doi: 10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102500. eCollection 2025 Mar.
Coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) present significant challenges in interventional cardiology, especially in low and middle-income countries like Vietnam. While the double-kissing (DK) crush technique is gaining attention for its potential benefits, its efficacy and safety compared with provisional stenting (PS) in the Vietnamese population remain underexplored. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the DK crush technique in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared with those of PS, providing essential data to inform clinical decision-making in settings with limited resources.
This prospective cohort study included 58 patients with CBL, 33 patients undergoing the DK crush technique and 25 receiving PS. Clinical follow-up at 1, 3, 9, and 12 months assessed MACE, including cardiovascular disease-related death, acute myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke.
Post-percutaneous coronary intervention side branch diameter stenosis in the DK crush group was 5.64% ± 5.80%, significantly lower than the PS group (48.2% ± 28.5%; < .001). One-year follow-up data revealed greater MACE reduction in the DK crush group (91% MACE-free vs 72% in the PS group; = .03; hazard ratio [HR], 3.689; 95% CI, 1.034-13.160). However, the DK crush technique had longer procedural times (91.1 vs 54.6 minutes) and required higher contrast and radiation doses ( < .01).
Although DK crush requires longer procedure times and greater radiation exposure, it results in greater MACE reduction than does PS in patients with CBL. Clinicians should weigh the benefits and limitations of both techniques, particularly in resource-limited settings.
冠状动脉分叉病变(CBLs)在介入心脏病学中带来了重大挑战,尤其是在越南等低收入和中等收入国家。虽然双吻(DK)挤压技术因其潜在益处而受到关注,但与临时支架置入术(PS)相比,其在越南人群中的疗效和安全性仍未得到充分研究。本研究旨在评估DK挤压技术与PS相比在减少主要不良心血管事件(MACE)方面的有效性,为资源有限环境下的临床决策提供重要数据。
这项前瞻性队列研究纳入了58例CBL患者,其中33例接受DK挤压技术,25例接受PS。在1、3、9和12个月进行临床随访,评估MACE,包括心血管疾病相关死亡、急性心肌梗死、因心力衰竭住院和中风。
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后,DK挤压组的分支直径狭窄率为5.64%±5.80%,显著低于PS组(48.2%±28.5%;P<0.001)。一年的随访数据显示,DK挤压组的MACE减少更多(无MACE者为91%,而PS组为72%;P=0.03;风险比[HR]为3.689;95%置信区间为1.034-13.160)。然而,DK挤压技术的手术时间更长(91.1分钟对54.6分钟),并且需要更高的造影剂和辐射剂量(P<0.01)。
尽管DK挤压需要更长的手术时间和更多的辐射暴露,但与PS相比,它能使CBL患者的MACE减少更多。临床医生应权衡两种技术的利弊,尤其是在资源有限的环境中。