Benefit of a new provisional stenting strategy, the re-proximal optimisation technique: the rePOT clinical study

Abstract

This clinical study of a large sample of complex coronary bifurcations with OCT analysis showed the benefit of the rePOT sequence in provisional stenting, replicating in vivo the excellent in vitro geometric results previously reported, and confirming ease of implementation and medium-term safety.

Letter by Dérimay et al regarding the article: “Coronary bifurcation bench test using multimodality imaging: Impact of stent strut link location on stent deformity and jailed side‐branch orifices during reproximal optimizing technique” by Kume et al

“…So to use a NC balloon exposes to a higher risk of malapposition rate. In this study, the global malapposition rate after POTs was largely higher than in previous experimental or clinical studies (10% vs. 2% and 3%, respectively). These residual malappositions, clearly shown in Figure 5, were expected because a NC balloon 3.5 mm cannot reach 3.65 mm (the target).…”

Randomized non-inferiority TrIal comParing reverse T And Protrusion versus double-kissing and crush Stenting for the treatment of complex left main bifurcation lesions

“…There was no difference in any of the lesion preparation parameters, stent size, or implantation pressure. Postdilation balloon sizes were similar, but final kissing balloon pressures were higher in the DK-crush group (main branch: DKcrush: 14 [12][13][14][15][16] ATM vs reverse-TAP: 13 [12][13][14] ATM, P = 0.056; side branch: 14 [12][13][14][15][16] vs 13 [12][13][14] ATM respectively, P = 0.043). Procedural time was higher in the DK-crush group (32 [24-44] min vs 25 [23-33] min, P = 0.044).…”

Crush versus Culotte stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions

“…[25] All of which, as demonstrated by numerous studies, have significantly improved not only stenting techniques themselves but also their clinical outcomes. [26–29] In this meta-analysis, the included studies were published from the year of 2013 to 2018, the Crush- or Culotte-based techniques used in this period experienced more or less technical optimization, probably leading to discrepancy in clinical outcomes as shown in this analysis.…”