Proximal optimisation technique versus final kissing balloon inflation in coronary bifurcation lesions: the randomised, multicentre PROPOT trial.
Journal
EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology
ISSN: 1969-6213
Titre abrégé: EuroIntervention
Pays: France
ID NLM: 101251040
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Oct 2021
20 Oct 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
30
3
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
entrez:
29
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Clinical implications of the proximal optimisation technique (POT) for bifurcation lesions have not been investigated in a randomised controlled trial. This study aimed to investigate whether POT is superior in terms of stent apposition compared with the conventional kissing balloon technique (KBT) in real-life bifurcation lesions using optical coherence tomography (OCT). A total of 120 patients from 15 centres were randomised into two groups - POT followed by side branch dilation or KBT. Finally, 57 and 58 patients in the POT and KBT groups, respectively, were analysed. OCT was performed at baseline, immediately after wire recrossing to the side branch, and at the final procedure. The primary endpoint was the rate of malapposed struts assessed by the final OCT. The rate of malapposed struts did not differ between the POT and KBT groups (in-stent proximal site: 10.4% vs 7.7%, p=0.33; bifurcation core: 1.4% vs 1.1%, p=0.67; core's distal edge: 6.2% vs 5.3%, p=0.59). More additional treatments were required among the POT group (40.4% vs 6.9%, p<0.01). At one-year follow-up, only one patient in each group underwent target lesion revascularisation (2.0% vs 1.9%). POT followed by side branch dilation did not show any advantages over conventional KBT in terms of stent apposition; however, excellent midterm clinical outcomes were observed in both strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Clinical implications of the proximal optimisation technique (POT) for bifurcation lesions have not been investigated in a randomised controlled trial.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to investigate whether POT is superior in terms of stent apposition compared with the conventional kissing balloon technique (KBT) in real-life bifurcation lesions using optical coherence tomography (OCT).
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 120 patients from 15 centres were randomised into two groups - POT followed by side branch dilation or KBT. Finally, 57 and 58 patients in the POT and KBT groups, respectively, were analysed. OCT was performed at baseline, immediately after wire recrossing to the side branch, and at the final procedure.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The primary endpoint was the rate of malapposed struts assessed by the final OCT. The rate of malapposed struts did not differ between the POT and KBT groups (in-stent proximal site: 10.4% vs 7.7%, p=0.33; bifurcation core: 1.4% vs 1.1%, p=0.67; core's distal edge: 6.2% vs 5.3%, p=0.59). More additional treatments were required among the POT group (40.4% vs 6.9%, p<0.01). At one-year follow-up, only one patient in each group underwent target lesion revascularisation (2.0% vs 1.9%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
POT followed by side branch dilation did not show any advantages over conventional KBT in terms of stent apposition; however, excellent midterm clinical outcomes were observed in both strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33775930
pii: EIJ-D-20-01386
doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-01386
pmc: PMC9724954
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
747-756Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Heart. 2012 Feb;98(3):225-31
pubmed: 21933939
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Jan 1;250:270-274
pubmed: 29030141
EuroIntervention. 2015;11 Suppl V:V81-5
pubmed: 25983179
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 22;10(1):18049
pubmed: 33093499
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Apr 20;8(4):550-60
pubmed: 25907082
EuroIntervention. 2011 Nov;7(7):886-7
pubmed: 21992847
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Oct 9;168(4):3623-8
pubmed: 23714592
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Jun;35(6):981-990
pubmed: 30887408
Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2020 Apr;35(2):105-116
pubmed: 32125622
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Jul 15;263:9-16
pubmed: 29754928
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jan 1;93(1):E17-E23
pubmed: 30244506
EuroIntervention. 2011 Sep;7(5):597-604
pubmed: 21930464
Am J Cardiol. 2011 May 15;107(10):1460-5
pubmed: 21414600
Int J Cardiol. 2019 Oct 1;292:95-97
pubmed: 31130279
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Mar;7(3):325-33
pubmed: 24650404
Circulation. 2007 May 1;115(17):2344-51
pubmed: 17470709
EuroIntervention. 2018 Jun 08;14(3):e325-e332
pubmed: 29553940
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Oct 1;82(4):E437-45
pubmed: 23441082
Circulation. 2011 Jan 4;123(1):79-86
pubmed: 21173348
J Interv Cardiol. 2001 Dec;14(6):573-85
pubmed: 12053378
Eur Heart J. 2016 Apr 14;37(15):1217-9
pubmed: 26802137
EuroIntervention. 2010 May;6(1):34-8
pubmed: 20542795
EuroIntervention. 2016 May 17;12(1):38-46
pubmed: 27173860
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jul;96(1):31-39
pubmed: 32087046