Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-823" }, "headline": "Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and...", "datePublished": "2025-08-26T16:29:00", "dateModified": "2025-08-26T16:29:00", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Intan Komalasari" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Arga Setyo Adji" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Atiyatum Billah" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Antonius Dwi Saputra" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Diski Saisa" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Nadhifa Nurizzah Dhiyanisa" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Abdillah Maulana Satrioaji" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Verna Biutifasari" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Yudi Her Oktaviano" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Derren David Christian Homenta Rampengan" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Introduction Coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL) represent a challenging subset in percutaneous coronary intervention, often necessitating complex stenting strategies. Among these, Crush and Culotte techniques are widely employed; however, their long-term comparative effectiveness remains debated. Methods This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate one-, three-, and five-year clinical outcomes of Crush versus Culotte stenting techniques in patients with CBL. Results This meta-analysis included 13 articles involving 3,777 patients with coronary bifurcation lesions, with a mean age of 65.93 ± 4.67 years. At the one-year follow-up, Culotte stenting showed better outcomes in reducing target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization, with significant differences observed in TVR (RR 2.22; 95% CI: 0.40–12.38, p=0.0014) and TLR (RR 1.14; 95% CI: 0.30–4.37, p=0.0225), favoring Culotte. However, by the three-year follow-up, Crush stenting demonstrated superior effectiveness, showing lower risks of TVR (RR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.36–1.10, p=0.0105) and TLR (RR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.38–1.21, p=0.0284). No significant differences were observed between Crush and Culotte in myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, cardiac death, or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). SUCRA analysis revealed that DK Crush ranked highest for reducing TVR (RR 0.39; 95% CI: 0.27–0.57; SUCRA 0.99), Nano Crush for TLR (RR 0.11; 95% CI: 0.01–2.04; SUCRA 0.89), DK Crush for ST (RR 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05–1.08; SUCRA 0.86), Mini Crush for MI (RR 0.23; 95% CI: 0.03–1.73; SUCRA 0.78), Nano Crush for CD (RR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.03–2.18; SUCRA 0.84), and Typical Crush for CABG (RR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.29–1.88; SUCRA 0.82). Conclusion DK Crush stenting demonstrated superior long-term efficacy over Culotte, particularly in reducing TLR and TVR at three years. While differences in other outcomes were not statistically significant, SUCRA analysis supports DK Crush as the preferred strategy for complex bifurcation PCI. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-823/v1", "name": "Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation..." } } ] } Home Browse Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Komalasari I, Adji AS, Billah A et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :823 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168528.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review] Intan Komalasari 1-3 , Arga Setyo Adji https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0188-0500 1,2 , Atiyatum Billah https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3436-9004 2 , [...] Antonius Dwi Saputra https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7356-6732 4 , Diski Saisa 5 , Nadhifa Nurizzah Dhiyanisa 2 , Abdillah Maulana Satrioaji 2 , Verna Biutifasari 6 , Yudi Her Oktaviano 3 , Derren David Christian Homenta Rampengan https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5482-0613 7 Intan Komalasari 1-3 , Arga Setyo Adji https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0188-0500 1,2 , [...] Atiyatum Billah https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3436-9004 2 , Antonius Dwi Saputra https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7356-6732 4 , Diski Saisa 5 , Nadhifa Nurizzah Dhiyanisa 2 , Abdillah Maulana Satrioaji 2 , Verna Biutifasari 6 , Yudi Her Oktaviano 3 , Derren David Christian Homenta Rampengan https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5482-0613 7 PUBLISHED 26 Aug 2025 Author details Author details 1 Department of Cardiolgy and Vascular Medicine, Ramelan Navy Center Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia, Universitas Hang Tuah Fakultas Kedokteran, Surabaya, East Java, 60228, Indonesia 2 Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Hang Tuah Fakultas Kedokteran, Surabaya, East Java, 60228, Indonesia 3 Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Universitas Airlangga - General Academic Hospital Dr. Soetomo, Surabaya, Indonesia 4 Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Jember, East Java, 68121, Indonesia 5 Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Jakarta, 16424, Indonesia 6 Clinical Pathology Department, Universitas Hang Tuah Fakultas Kedokteran, Surabaya, East Java, 60228, Indonesia 7 Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sam Ratulangi, Manado, North Sulawesi, 95115, Indonesia Intan Komalasari Roles: Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Arga Setyo Adji Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Atiyatum Billah Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Supervision, Validation, Visualization Antonius Dwi Saputra Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Resources Diski Saisa Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Nadhifa Nurizzah Dhiyanisa Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Abdillah Maulana Satrioaji Roles: Conceptualization, Software, Supervision Verna Biutifasari Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing Yudi Her Oktaviano Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Derren David Christian Homenta Rampengan Roles: Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW Abstract Introduction Coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL) represent a challenging subset in percutaneous coronary intervention, often necessitating complex stenting strategies. Among these, Crush and Culotte techniques are widely employed; however, their long-term comparative effectiveness remains debated. Methods This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate one-, three-, and five-year clinical outcomes of Crush versus Culotte stenting techniques in patients with CBL. Results This meta-analysis included 13 articles involving 3,777 patients with coronary bifurcation lesions, with a mean age of 65.93 ± 4.67 years. At the one-year follow-up, Culotte stenting showed better outcomes in reducing target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization, with significant differences observed in TVR (RR 2.22; 95% CI: 0.40–12.38, p=0.0014) and TLR (RR 1.14; 95% CI: 0.30–4.37, p=0.0225), favoring Culotte. However, by the three-year follow-up, Crush stenting demonstrated superior effectiveness, showing lower risks of TVR (RR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.36–1.10, p=0.0105) and TLR (RR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.38–1.21, p=0.0284). No significant differences were observed between Crush and Culotte in myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, cardiac death, or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). SUCRA analysis revealed that DK Crush ranked highest for reducing TVR (RR 0.39; 95% CI: 0.27–0.57; SUCRA 0.99), Nano Crush for TLR (RR 0.11; 95% CI: 0.01–2.04; SUCRA 0.89), DK Crush for ST (RR 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05–1.08; SUCRA 0.86), Mini Crush for MI (RR 0.23; 95% CI: 0.03–1.73; SUCRA 0.78), Nano Crush for CD (RR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.03–2.18; SUCRA 0.84), and Typical Crush for CABG (RR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.29–1.88; SUCRA 0.82). Conclusion DK Crush stenting demonstrated superior long-term efficacy over Culotte, particularly in reducing TLR and TVR at three years. While differences in other outcomes were not statistically significant, SUCRA analysis supports DK Crush as the preferred strategy for complex bifurcation PCI. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Coronary Bifurcation Lesions, Crush Stenting, Culotte Stenting, Target Lesion Revascularization, Target Vessel Revascularization Corresponding Author(s) Yudi Her Oktaviano ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Yudi Her Oktaviano Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Komalasari I et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. How to cite: Komalasari I, Adji AS, Billah A et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :823 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168528.1 ) First published: 26 Aug 2025, 14 :823 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168528.1 ) Latest published: 26 Aug 2025, 14 :823 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168528.1 ) Introduction Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains the leading cause of global mortality, accounting for approximately 17.9 million deaths annually, or about 31% of all deaths worldwide. One of the major challenges in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL), which are found in about 15–20% of all PCI procedures. 1 Bifurcation lesions, especially those involving the left main coronary artery, are associated with higher risks of restenosis, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In recent decades, dual-stent strategies such as the Crush and Culotte techniques have been developed to address the anatomical complexity of these lesions. 2 , 3 Among the various dual-stenting strategies, Crush and Culotte techniques are the most frequently adopted. The Crush technique has evolved into several refined variants to improve outcomes and procedural success. These include Typical Crush, where the side branch stent is crushed by the main vessel stent without additional ballooning; Mini Crush, which reduces the amount of crushed strut by minimizing protrusion (<1–2 mm); Modified Crush, which integrates high-pressure balloon post-dilation to improve stent apposition; and Nano Crush, which utilizes ultra-thin struts and minimal crush to optimize flow dynamics and reduce metal burden in the carina. 4 Meta-analysis data suggest that Double Kissing (DK) Crush is particularly effective, demonstrating a 60% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared to Culotte and other techniques. 5 In the DKCRUSH-III trial, DK Crush reduced 3-year MACE rates to 8.2% compared to 23.7% in the Culotte group, driven mainly by lower myocardial infarction (3.4% vs. 8.2%) and target vessel revascularization (5.8% vs. 18.8%). 6 In a real-world observational registry, DK Crush was also associated with a 72% reduction in MACE compared to Culotte during a 43-month follow-up, mainly due to significantly reduced target vessel revascularization (14.3% vs. 29.3%). 7 Furthermore, Nano Crush has been shown to significantly reduce contrast usage, procedural time, and fluoroscopy exposure while maintaining superior clinical outcomes, including a three-year MACE rate of 6.2% compared to 24.2% with Culotte. 4 A broader network meta-analysis covering over 10,000 patient-years identified DK Crush as having the highest probability (98%) of being the most effective two-stent strategy in reducing stent-related clinical outcomes. 8 There is an urgent need for robust evidence to identify the optimal stenting technique for CBL, as MACE rates at 3 to 5 years post-intervention remain high—reaching up to 28% in some dual-stent approaches. 6 For instance, in the DKCRUSH-III study, DK Crush was associated with an 8.2% MACE rate compared to 23.7% with Culotte stenting at 3-year follow-up. 6 Additionally, a network meta-analysis found that DK Crush ranked highest in effectiveness for reducing MACE, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and revascularization outcomes. 5 Given this background, the present study aims to systematically evaluate and compare the one-, three-, and five-year clinical outcomes of the Crush versus Culotte techniques in patients with CBL. By applying a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, this study seeks to provide comprehensive evidence regarding the long-term safety and effectiveness of both strategies, ultimately offering data-driven guidance for future clinical practice. Methods This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. 9 It has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the identification number CRD420251064878. Eligibility criteria For this meta-analysis, we strictly followed predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies evaluating stenting strategies in coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL). Patients, Interventions, Comparator, and Outcomes (PICO) were presented in Table 1 . Inclusion criteria required studies that: (1) involved adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with CBL, specifically classified using Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1; (2) compared Crush Stenting and Culotte Stenting techniques; (3) reported at least one relevant clinical outcome, including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) such as cardiac death (CD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and target vessel revascularization (TVR), as well as stent thrombosis (ST); (4) had a follow-up duration of at least 12 months and/or 36 months, with additional data up to 60 months considered when available; (5) were published in English. Conversely, we excluded studies that (1) involved non-adult populations or did not classify lesions using the specified Medina types; (2) did not compare both stenting techniques; (3) lacked adequate clinical outcome data or follow-up; and (4) case reports, reviews, editorials, or conference abstracts. Table 1. PICOs framework. PICOs framework Definition Population (P) Adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL), categorized as Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1, and follow-up periods of 12 months, 36 months, and 60 months Intervention (I) Crush Stenting Comparator (C) Culotte Stenting Outcomes (O) Clinical outcomes: MACE (CD, MI, TLR, CABG, TVR), and ST Study design (s) Longitudinal studies Search strategy and selection of studies A comprehensive search was conducted across several electronic databases to identify relevant studies up until June 2025. The databases included PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Europe PMC. The search strategy combined key terms related to coronary bifurcation stenting techniques and clinical outcomes, such as “Coronary Bifurcation Lesion,” “CBL,” “Crush Stenting,” “Culotte Stenting,” “Bifurcation PCI,” “Nano Crush,” “Mini Crush,” “Typical Crush,” “Modified Crush,” and “DK Crush.” Outcome-related terms, including “Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events,” “MACE,” “Cardiac Death,” “Myocardial Infarction,” “Target Lesion Revascularization,” “Target Vessel Revascularization,” and “Stent Thrombosis,” were also used. Boolean operators “AND” and “OR” were applied to combine and refine search terms for comprehensive coverage. In addition, the reference lists of all eligible articles were manually reviewed to identify further studies relevant to the meta-analysis. Data extraction Designated investigators (I.K., A.S.A., A.B., D.S., A.D.S., N.N.D., and Y.H.O.) meticulously extracted relevant data using a predefined data extraction form after identifying the eligible studies. The extracted data encompassed detailed study characteristics including the author names, publication year, study design, study location (country), study period, and population demographics. Specifically, we recorded the type of stent used (Crush or Culotte), mean age ± standard deviation (S.D.), number and percentage of male participants, bifurcation classification (Medina 1.1.1 and 0.1.1), and the number of patients with key cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HT), smoking status, and hyperlipidemia. Information related to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration, final kissing balloon dilation (FKBD) percentages, and stent characteristics such as mean vessel length (MVL), side branch length (SBL), mean vessel diameter (MVD), and side branch diameter (SBD) was also systematically recorded. To ensure data quality and consistency, a rigorous cross-checking process was conducted in which an independent investigator validated the extracted information, thereby ensuring accuracy and completeness for subsequent meta-analysis. Quality assessment The second edition of the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB 2) was utilized to assess the potential bias in the included RCT studies. The RoB 2 tool evaluates studies across five key domains, allowing for a thorough analysis of risk of bias. Additionally, for non-randomized controlled trials (N-RCTs), the ROBINS-I tool was employed to assess bias across seven domains. 10 , 11 A total of 13 studies were included in the analysis, with 8 of them being non-RCTs assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and 5 RCTs evaluated using RoB 2. The quality assessment was performed by three researchers (A.S.A., A.B., and N.N.D). Any disagreements encountered during the evaluation process were resolved through collaboration and consensus among the researchers. Outcome measure This analysis focused on clinically relevant outcome measures to compare the effectiveness of Crush versus Culotte stenting techniques in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions over one- and three-year follow-up periods. The primary clinical endpoints assessed were myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), cardiac death (CD), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Effect estimates were reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using a random-effects model to account for potential variation across studies. To determine the relative performance of each technique, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values were calculated, providing a probabilistic ranking of treatment effectiveness. The analysis also included various subtypes of the Crush technique: DK Crush (Double Kissing Crush), which incorporates two kissing balloon inflations for optimal expansion; Mini Crush, which reduces metal overlap with shorter side branch protrusion; Typical Crush, the conventional form with full side branch coverage; Nano Crush, which minimizes protrusion to reduce restenosis; and Modified Crush, a procedural adaptation based on clinical need. Visual tools such as forest plots, network graphs, and league tables were used to compare relative effectiveness among these techniques over the defined time points. Data synthesis and statistical analysis Each outcome measure in this study was analyzed using pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), calculated through a random-effects meta-analysis model. The primary clinical outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), cardiac death (CD), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR), assessed at one-year and three-year follow-up periods. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values were used to rank the effectiveness of each stenting strategy. Subgroup analysis was conducted to compare different types of Crush techniques, including DK Crush, Mini Crush, Typical Crush, Nano Crush, and Modified Crush, in relation to Culotte stenting. The I 2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity among studies. All statistical analyses were performed using R-Studio. 12 Results Study selection process and quality assessment After conducting a comprehensive literature search across seven major databases—ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, Europe PMC, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane—a total of 7,358 records were identified. An additional 6 records were identified through citation searching, bringing the total to 7,364. Prior to screening, 24,865 records were removed due to duplication, ineligibility by automation tools, or other reasons. This left 4,308 records to be screened. Of these, 4,083 were excluded for reasons such as non-English language (44), incompatible designs (213), wrong publication type (180), irrelevant populations (450), unrelated stenting techniques (779), missing relevant clinical outcomes (947), or unrelated topics (787). A total of 243 reports were sought for retrieval, of which 43 were not retrieved due to abstract-only availability. Ultimately, 200 reports were assessed for eligibility. Among them, 193 were excluded for reasons including lack of bifurcation lesions (65), not involving both Crush and Culotte techniques (32), not reporting key outcomes (74), or irrelevance to coronary bifurcation PCI (22). From both database and citation sources, 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with 7 included in the final systematic review. The full selection process is summarized in the PRISMA flowchart ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process. Study characteristics Table 2 presents data from a total of 13 studies involving 3,777 patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. Among these, 8 studies are non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) and 5 studies are randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The mean age of the participants is 65.93 ± 4.67 years. These studies were conducted across various regions, including 4 studies from China, 6 , 13 , 14 1 study from the United States, 7 1 study from Canada, 15 3 studies from Italy, 4 , 16 , 17 1 study from Japan, 18 1 study from Latvia, 19 1 study from Finland, 20 and 1 study from Pakistan. 21 The follow-up durations in these studies range from 12 months to 60 months, with most studies assessing clinical outcomes at 12 months. The patient populations are diverse, with some studies focusing on specific stenting techniques such as 1st-2nd DES (Drug-Eluting Stent), while others evaluate 3rd DES. The study characteristics show that 57.74% of patients have diabetes mellitus (DM), 57.33% have hypertension (HT), 48.15% are smokers, and 58.47% have hyperlipidemia. The mean number of patients per study is 310.63 (90.46%). Stent parameters include a mean vessel length (MVL) of 33.48 ± 14.01 mm for group 1 and 35.74 ± 15.99 mm for group 2, stent balloon length (SB) of 25.90 ± 13.83 mm and 26.72 ± 11.86 mm, mean vessel diameter (MVD) of 3.40 ± 0.34 mm and 3.34 ± 0.40 mm, and stent balloon diameter (SBD) of 3.04 ± 0.41 mm and 3.03 ± 0.41 mm. Table 2. Data characteristics. Author, Year Study design Study location (Countries) Study period Population Type of stent Mean age±S.D Man, n (%) Medina, (%) DM (n) HT (n) Smoking (n) Hyperlipidemia (n) DAPT Periods FKBD % Stent (mm) Crush Culotte 1.1.1 0.1.1 MVL SBL MVD SBD Chen 2015 RCT China 3 year 208 207 1st-2nd DES 64.3±10.3/63.3±9.2 162 (77.1)/167 (79.9) 207 (98.7)/198 (94.8) 3 (1.3)/11 (5.2) 31.9 (67)/30.1 (63) 70.5 (148)/61.2 (128) 27.6 (58)/25.8 (54) 41.4 (87)/42.1 (88) 12 month 209 (99.5)/208 (99.5) 33.48±14.01/35.74±15.99 25.90±13.83/26.72±11.86 3.40±0.34/3.34±0.40 3.04±0.41/3.03±0.41 Chen 2013 RCT China 1 Year 210 209 1st-2nd DES 64.3±10.3/63.3±9.2 162 (77.1)/167 (79.9) 207 (98.7)/198 (94.8) 3 (1.3)/11 (5.2) 31.9 (67)/30.1 (63) 70.5 (148)/61.2 (128) 27.6 (58)/25.8 (54) 41.4 (87)/42.1 (88) 12 month 209 (99.5)/208 (99.5) 33.48±14.01/35.74±15.99 25.90±13.83/26.72±11.86 3.40±0.34/3.34±0.40 3.04±0.41/3.03±0.41 Mutlu 2025 Observational US 3 year 119 58 NA 67.50±10.75/66.39±10.09 112 (75.7)/47 (70.1) 121 (75.2)/45 (63.4) 21 (13.0)/16 (22.5) 33.8 (50)/37.3 (25) 73.6 (109)/79.1 (53) 19.5 (29)/19.4 (13) 81.8 (121)/85.1 (57) NA NA 10.00 ± 7.41/9.50 ± 3.70 10.00 ± 6.48/10.00 ± 3.70 3.00 ± 0.37/3.00 ± 0.37 2.75 ± 0.37/2.50 ± 0.19 Kawamoto 2016 Observational Italy 5 year 135 90 1st-2nd DES 69.9±9.6/67.4±11.2 105 (78.9)/74 (82.2) 89 (65.9)/63 (70.0) 20(14.8)/8(8.9) 39.1 (52)/29.4 (25) 84.4 (114)/76.1 (67) 26.9 (21)/20.3 (15) 76.9 (103)/72.7 (64) 12 month 133 (98.5)/88 (97.8) 23.6 ± 6.0/24.1 ± 6.2 19.8 ± 6.4/22.3 ± 5.7 3.42 ± 0.21/3.38 ± 0.31 2.99 ± 0.38/3.24 ± 0.34 Pavani 2018 Observational Italy 3 year 104 68 2nd DES 71.0±10.0/71.0±9.2 86 (82.7)/53 (77.9) NA NA 38.5 (40)/27.9 (19) 77.7 (84)/73.5 (50) NA 61.1 (66)/61.8 (42) 12 month 96 (92.3)/64 (94.1) 22±6.4/23±6.3 19±6/21±5 3.9±0.3/3.8±0.4 3±0.7/3.6±0.5 Zheng 2016 RCT China 1 year 150 150 NA 63 ± 8/64 ± 9 109 (72.7)/111 (74.0) 109 (72.7)/111 (74.0) 14 (9.3)/7 (4.7) 22.0 (33)/24.7 (37) 70.7 (106)/72.7 (109) 38.7 (58)/44.7 (67) 76.0 (114)/70.0 (105) 12 month 107 (71.3)/129 (86.0) 22.8 ± 7.5/24.6 ± 6.7 10.4 ± 5.6/10.2 ± 5.8 3.4 ± 0.4/3.3 ± 0.5 2.6 ± 0.3/2.7 ± 0.4 Kervinen 2013 RCT Finland 3 year 209 215 1st DES 65±10/65±11 149 (71)/154 (71) NA NA 13.0 (28)/15.0 (31) 62.0 (130)/60.0 (129) 20.0 (42)/27.0 (58) 84 (176)/74 (159) 12 month 177 (85)/197 (92) 23.5±93/23.6±9.1 10.6±5.6/10.6±5.8 3.38±0.38/3.32±0.33 2.78±0.33/2.77±0.33 Freixa 2013 Observational Canada 5 year 304 56 1st DES 63.2±11.8/63.5±10.8 225 (74)/40 (71.4) 197 (64.9)/25 (45.5) 67 (22.2)/20 (36.4) 26.0 (79)/30.4 (17) 63.8 (194)/62.5 (35) NA 77.3 (235)/68.6 (35) 25 month 244 (80.3)/42 (75.0) NA NA 3.28±0.36/3.08±0/34 2.82±0.30/2.91±0.34 Rigatelli 2018 Observational Italy 3 year 32 33 3 rd DES 77.1±5.8/78.1±6.8 17 (57.2)/20 (60.7) 24 (75.0)/17 (51.5) 8 (25.0)/16 (48.4) 25.0 (8)/27.2 (9) 68.5 (22)/60.6 (20) 37.5 (12)/27.2 (9) 75.0 (24)/63.6 (21) 12 month NA NA NA NA NA Erglis 2009 RCT Latvia 1 year 209 215 1 st DES 65±10/65±11 149 (71)/154 (72) NA NA 13.0 (28)/15.0 (31) 62.0 (130)/60.0 (129) 20.0 (42)/27.0 (58) 84.0 (176)/74.0 (159) 12 month 177 (85.0)/197 (92.0) 23.5±9.3/23.6±9.2 10.6±5.6/10.6±5.8 3.38±0.38/3.32±0.33 2.78±0.33/2.77±0.33 Shah 2014 Observational Pakistan 3 year 151 152 NA 60.4±9.2/60.0±9.0 98/100 NA NA 20.5 (31)/21.7 (33) 45.0 (68)/46.1 (70) 27.8 (42)/32.2 (49) 23.8 (36)/25.0 (38) NA NA NA NA NA NA Takagi 2014 Observational Japan 3 year 119 63 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Liu 2015 Observational China 1 year 169 142 1 st DES 63.1±11.3/61.6±9.7 121 (71.59)/96 (67.61) NA NA 18.9 (32)/16.9 (24) 54.4 (92)/58.5 (83) NA 77.5 (131)/75.4 (107) 12 month 165 (97.6%)/130 (91.5%) 29.00±7.35/30.20±6.80 18.50±2.72/21.70±5.04 2.90±0.19/2.90±0.22 2.40±0.68/2.60±0.37 Risk of bias Figure 2 shows the risk of bias assessments for a total of 13 studies, divided into 8 non-randomized controlled trials (N-RCTs) and 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Panel A presents the risk of bias for the 8 non-RCT studies, assessed using the ROBINS-I tool, across seven domains, such as bias from confounding, participant selection, and classification of interventions. The majority of these studies show a moderate risk of bias (yellow), with about 62.5% of the non-RCT studies marked with moderate bias, and 37.5% showing low risk (green). The overall risk of bias for these non-RCT studies is summarized in the bar graph, with 62.5% of studies showing a moderate risk and 37.5% showing low risk. Panel B shows the 5 RCTs evaluated using the RoB 2 tool, which assesses five domains such as randomization and selection of the reported result. Most of the RCTs show a low risk of bias (green), with 80% of the RCT studies having a low risk of bias across the domains. However, there are some concerns in randomization, specifically in the study by Zheng 2016, which is marked with blue, indicating “no information.” The overall risk of bias for the RCTs is summarized in the bar graph, with 80% of studies showing low risk, and 20% showing some concerns. Figure 2. Risk of bias summary and graph. Network meta-analysis of coronary bifurcation stenting techniques: Crush versus Culotte Table 3 offers a concise evaluation of the angiographic and clinical endpoints of DES compared to DCB in treating DES-ISR. Table 3. Summary of results. End point Crush vs Culotte in coronary bifurcation lesion Crush group Culotte group RR (95% CI) One-Year Three-Year Five-Year Clinical Outcomes (n/total studies) (n/total studies) CD (2015/12 studies) (1590/12 studies) 1.63 [0.51; 5.24], p=0.9440 0.80 [0.50; 1.27], p=0.8483 0.54 [0.17; 1.73], p=0.7563 CABG (841/4 studies) (530/4 studies) 4.98 [0.24; 103.03] 2.25 [0.46; 11.03], p=0.9013 0.74 [0.29; 1.88] MI (1849/11 studies) (1443/11 studies) 0.93 [0.52; 1.67], p=0.3253 0.63 [0.39; 1.02], p=0.3994 0.39 [0.03; 5.12], p=0.1044 TLR (1376/9 studies) (1250/9 studies) 1.14 [0.30; 4.37], p=0.0225 * 0.68 [0.38; 1.21], p=0.0284 * 0.89 [0.56; 1.40] TVR (1682/9 studies) (1352/9 studies) 2.22 [0.40; 12.38], p=0.0014 * 0.62 [0.36; 1.10], p=0.0105 * 0.70 [0.37; 1.32] ST (1986/11 studies) (1645/11 studies) 0.81 [0.37; 1.78], p=0.6363 0.81 [0.51; 1.29], p=0.1860 0.33 [0.07; 1.52], p=0.2220 * p<0.05. Crush vs Cullote in TVR TVR outcomes were reported in 9 studies involving a total of 3002 patients. DK Crush significantly reduced the risk of target vessel revascularization compared to Culotte stenting (RR 0.39; 95% CI [0.27–0.57]), with a SUCRA value of 0.99, indicating the highest probability of being the most effective strategy. In contrast, Modified Crush showed a substantially higher risk of TVR (RR 14.28; 95% CI [1.91–106.68]) compared to Culotte, and ranked the lowest with a SUCRA of 0.00. Mini Crush (RR 0.77; 95% CI [0.43–1.39]) and Typical Crush (RR 0.89; 95% CI [0.61–1.29]) did not show statistically significant differences. The overall heterogeneity was low (τ 2 =0.0065; τ 2 =0.0809; I 2 =4.5%; 95% CI [0.0–75.8%]). Treatment rankings based on SUCRA values showed DK Crush as the most effective strategy in reducing TVR, while Modified Crush ranked the lowest. A net graph, forest plot, and league table comparing the effectiveness of Crush versus Culotte stenting in TVR outcomes are presented in Figure 3 . Figure 3. Net graph, forest plot and league table for target vascular revascularization. Crush vs Cullote in TLR In Figure 4 , a total of 2,626 participants from 9 studies were analyzed. In the Forest Plot, DK Crush significantly reduces the risk of Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR) (RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.16-.055). DK Crush demonstrates a high SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking) score of 0.81, indicating it is the most effective treatment. Nano Crush also indicates a potentially effective treatment with a lower RR value (RR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01-2.04) and a strong SUCRA score of 0.89, but its broad confidence interval suggests there is some uncertainty. Mini Crush (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.69–1.24) and Typical Crush (RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.76–2.35) showed no significant differences compared to Culotte, with lower SUCRA scores of 0.40 and 0.09. Overall, DK Crush is the most successful technique for lowering TLR, as evidenced by consistent performance across all comparisons and a high ranking probability. Figure 4. Net graph, forest plot and league table for target lesion revascularization. Crush vs Cullote in ST A total of 3,353 patients from 10 studies of crush and cullote in ST were reported in Figure 5 . DK Crush showed the lowest estimated risk (RR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.05–1.08), indicating a possible reduction in ST, although its confidence interval exceeded 1, indicating statistical insignificance. Mini Crush (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.08–5.34) and Modified Crush (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.12–2.07) also tended to have a lower risk but with wider confidence intervals, indicating imprecision. Typical Crush showed the highest estimated RR value among the alternatives (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.50–1.48) and showed a low SUCRA value (0.34), implying a lower position in reducing ST. The SUCRA scores place DK Crush (0.86) as the leading strategy, followed by Modified Crush (0.59) and Mini Crush (0.48). However, the wide confidence intervals between these comparisons warrant caution due to the potential imprecision involved. In summary, DK Crush appears to be quite effective in minimizing ST risk, ranking highest among the techniques evaluated. Figure 5. Net graph, forest plot and league table for stent thrombosis. Crush vs Cullote in MI In Figure 6 , MI outcomes were reported in total of 3,292 participants from 11 studies. All four alternative approaches—Mini Crush, Nano Crush, DK Crush, and Modified Crush—demonstrated lower risk estimates for MI compared to Culotte, although the confidence intervals for most comparisons were wide and crossed 1, suggesting a lack of statistical significance. Notably, DK Crush showed a better risk profile (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.28–0.88) with the highest SUCRA value (0.60) among the techniques, indicating a relatively strong ranking. Mini Crush and Nano Crush followed with SUCRA values of 0.78 and 0.74, respectively, while Typical Crush had the lowest ranking (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.75–2.23; SUCRA: 0.09). Overall, DK Crush appeared to offer the most consistent benefit in reducing MI risk, as supported by both ranking and statistical metrics. Figure 6. Net graph, forest plot and league table for myocardial infraction. Crush vs Cullote in CD CD outcomes were reported across six bifurcation stenting strategies in a network of studies, as visualized in the forest plot, network graph, and league table ( Figure 7 ). The analysis included a total of 3,605 patients in 12 studies. Four alternative strategies; Nano Crush, Mini Crush, DK Crush, and Typical Crush showed lower RR for CD compared to Culotte, though none reached statistical significance, as all confidence intervals crossed 1. Notably, Nano Crush demonstrated the lowest RR (0.26, 95% CI: 0.03–2.18), followed by Mini Crush (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.17–2.07) and DK Crush (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.48–1.48). Modified Crush, in contrast, appeared to have an elevated risk compared to Culotte (RR: 2.52, 95% CI: 0.10–61.43), although the wide interval suggests substantial uncertainty. Ranking probability based on SUCRA values supported these findings, with Nano Crush achieving the highest SUCRA (0.86), suggesting the most favorable profile, followed by Mini Crush (0.66) and DK Crush (0.52). Typical Crush (0.37) and Modified Crush (0.23) ranked lower, with Culotte ranking the lowest in terms of efficacy. Overall, Nano Crush emerged as the top-ranked strategy for minimizing cardiac death, albeit with imprecise estimates due to limited sample size. Figure 7. Net graph, forest plot and league table for cardiac death. Crush vs Cullote in CABG The CABG analysis included 1,371 patients from 4 studies. Typical Crush was associated with a lower risk of CABG compared to Culotte (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.29–1.88), whereas DK Crush showed a higher risk (RR: 2.65, 95% CI: 0.65–10.82). However, both comparisons were statistically inconclusive due to wide confidence intervals that crossed the line of no effect. The SUCRA values shows Typical Crush ranked highest (SUCRA: 0.82), suggesting it had the most favorable profile in minimizing CABG risk. Culotte and DK Crush ranked lower, with DK Crush showing the least favorable outcome (SUCRA: 0.09). The network graph illustrates the available direct comparisons, with the most frequent being between Culotte and DK Crush (3 studies). DK Crush had a lower estimated risk than Typical Crush (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09–1.54), though the result was not statistically significant. Typical Crush also had a modestly better profile than Culotte (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.53–3.47), supporting its top SUCRA ranking. In summary, Typical Crush appeared to be the most promising strategy in reducing CABG rates, although the wide uncertainty intervals suggest that further evidence is needed for definitive conclusions ( Figure 8 ). Figure 8. Net graph, forest plot and league table for coronary artery bypass graft. Meta-analysis comparing Crush versus Culotte techniques in coronary bifurcation stenting TVR and TLR in Crush vs Cullote In Figure 9 , we presented a comparative analysis of the Crush and Culotte stenting techniques for TVR and TLR outcomes. A total of Eight studies including 3,034 patients were evaluated for TVR at one- and three-year follow-up endpoints. For overall TVR in Figure 9A , pooled analysis showed significant different between the two treatments (RR 2.22, 95% CI: 0.48–1.33, I 2 = 71.1%, p-value = 0.0005). In one- and three-years follow-up, we did not find significant difference between Crush and Culotte. In Figure 9B , comparison of the two techniques in terms of TLR also evaluated in 8 studies encompassing 2,626 patients. This analysis showed statistically significant difference (RR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.52–1.20, I 2 = 57.6%, p-value = 0.00156). Consistent with the findings for overall TVR, no significant difference in TLR was observed at either the one-year or three-year follow-up. High heterogeneity was found in both TVR and TLR outcomes. Figure 9. Forest plot of Crush vs Cullote in (A) TVR, and (B) TLR. ST and MI in Crush vs Cullote Figure 10 presented comparative analysis of the Crush and Culotte technique for the outcomes of ST and MI at one-, three-, and five-year follow-up periods. In Figure 10A , a total 11 studies comprising 3,631 patients were included in the analysis of ST. The pooled RR indicated no significant different between two techniques (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.52–1.12, I 2 = 0%, p-value = 0.4416), with consistently non-significant results across all follow-up intervals. Figure 10B represented MI outcomes from 11 studies consisting of 3,292 patients. Pooled analysis showed that no significant result between two treatments (RR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.50–1.00, I 2 = 8.2%, p-value = 0.1004). Figure 10. Forest plot of Crush vs Cullote in (A) ST, and (B) MI. CD and CABG in Crush vs Cullote In Figure 11A , 12 studies involving 3,605 patients were analyzed for cardiac death (CD). The pooled RR was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.56–1.25, I 2 = 0%, p-value = 0.9440), indicating that Crush and Culotte has similar risk, with low heterogeneity. In Figure 11B , CABG outcome was evaluated based on 4 studies including 1,371 patients. The meta-analysis found no significant result between the two stenting strategies (RR 1.24, 95% CI: 0.58–2.62, I 2 = 0%, p-value = 0.9013). At one-, three-, and five-year follow-up, no significant different was observed between Crush and Culotte treatment for both CD and CABG outcomes. Figure 11. Forest plot of Crush vs Cullote in (A) CD, and (B) CABG. Discussion This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Crush stenting technique compared to the Culotte technique in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. By including 3,777 patients from various studies, our results show that the Double Kissing (DK) Crush technique provides the best outcomes in reducing the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis (ST). This technique has a high SUCRA value, reflecting its strong likelihood of being the best strategy. In contrast, Modified Crush showed poor outcomes with the highest TVR risk and the lowest SUCRA. The Mini Crush and Typical Crush techniques did not show significant superiority over Culotte. Although there is variation in the effectiveness of the different techniques, the heterogeneity of the data in our study is low, strengthening the findings. Overall, DK Crush emerges as the most consistent and promising technique for managing complex coronary bifurcation lesions. In this study, DK Crush significantly reduced the risk of TVR compared to the Culotte technique (RR 0.39; 95% CI [0.27–0.57]; SUCRA 0.99), while Modified Crush showed a drastic increase in risk (RR 14.28; 95% CI [1.91–106.68]; SUCRA 0.00). These results are supported by the study by Chen et al. (2013), which showed that DK Crush reduced TVR rates (4.3%) compared to Culotte (11.0%). A meta-analysis by Wang et al. (2021) also showed that DK Crush ranked the best for TLR (100%) compared to other techniques. Similarly, a study by Di Gioia et al. (2019) reported a significant decrease in TLR with DK Crush. 5 , 14 , 22 Research by Chen et al. (2019) also identified a trend of decreasing TLR with the Crush technique, although the difference was not significant. Our study’s findings strengthen the evidence that DK Crush remains the most effective option to prevent revascularization in complex bifurcation lesions. 2 Our study shows that DK Crush has the lowest risk of stent thrombosis (ST) (RR 0.23; 95% CI [0.05–1.08]) and a reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 0.71; 95% CI [0.50–1.00]), although neither reached statistical significance. A similar reduction was also observed in the DKCRUSH-III study by, 6 which showed an ST rate of 0% for DK Crush compared to 3.4% for Culotte. A meta-analysis by 2 showed lower risks of MI and ST with the Crush technique compared to Culotte. In the EVOLUTE-CRUSH IV study, DK Crush demonstrated much lower TLR rates compared to Mini Culotte (7.1% vs. 15.9%; p=0.035). 3 These findings reinforce that DK Crush consistently performs better clinically in terms of MI and ST parameters, although the limitation of wide confidence intervals remains an important consideration. For outcomes of cardiac death (CD) and the need for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), our study shows no significant difference between DK Crush and Culotte (CD: RR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.56–1.25; CABG: RR 1.24; 95% CI: 0.58–2.62). However, Typical Crush emerged as the strategy with the best CABG profile, based on the highest SUCRA value (0.86). This finding differs from the study by, 14 which showed that DK Crush reduced CD compared to Culotte. A meta-analysis by Mou et al., 2022 found that DK Crush significantly lowered MI and CD rates compared to Culotte. 23 In the PROGRESS-BIFURCATION registry, DK Crush showed a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to Culotte (HR 0.28; p=0.001), driven by a reduction in TVR rates. 7 Therefore, while our study did not show statistical significance in CD and CABG outcomes, the literature supports the superiority of DK Crush in reducing long-term risks. In our meta-analysis comparing Crush vs Cullote in CBL, MACE represented a frequent postoperative complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In this meta-analysis, we defined MACE as including cardiac death (CD), stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). We conducted an analysis focusing on the revascularization outcomes of TLR and TVR. In this network meta-analysis, DK-Crush demonstrated the most favorable and statistically significant outcomes in reducing the risk of TVR and TLR (RR 0.39 and 0.30, respectively) compared to other treatment strategies. However, in the pairwise analysis between Crush and Culotte, both outcomes showed no statistically significant differences (RR 0.80 [95% CI: 0.48–1.33] and 0.79 [95% CI: 0.52–1.20], respectively). Additionally, no significant differences were observed between one-year and three-year follow-up periods. These findings are consistent with two previous meta-analyses by Chen et al., (2020) which reported similar results. 2 TVR is frequently employed as the primary endpoint for assessing long-term efficacy, as it more precisely reflects the anatomical site of stent deployment compared to (TVR). Consequently, TLR is considered a more clinically relevant measure and is preferred for evaluating the performance of stenting procedures. For the take-home message in this research, we conclude that our study included 3,777 patients with coronary bifurcation lesions who underwent either the Crush or Culotte stenting technique. The DK Crush technique demonstrated superior performance in terms of TVR, TLR, ST, and MI compared to other techniques. However, for the outcomes of CD and CABG, no significant differences were found between the groups. The results of this study support DK Crush as the most promising intervention strategy for complex bifurcation lesions. Going forward, large-scale randomized trials are needed to confirm the superiority of DK Crush in the global population. Further evaluation with IVUS or OCT guidance is also important to understand the mechanism behind the success of this technique. New techniques, such as Nano Crush, are worth testing further in head-to-head studies against DK Crush. An individualized strategy based on bifurcation anatomy complexity and the SYNTAX score needs to be developed to optimize bifurcation invasive therapy. This study has several limitations. First, the overall sample size included in the analysis was relatively small (n = 3,777), which may limit the statistical power of the findings. Second, some of the included studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity in their results, potentially affecting the robustness of the pooled estimates. Third, variations in patient populations, especially in terms of comorbidities and the severity of coronary bifurcation lesions, may influence the generalizability of the findings to broader clinical settings. Fourth, variations in patient populations, especially in terms of comorbidities and the severity of coronary bifurcation lesions, may influence the generalizability of the findings to broader clinical settings. Lastly, there was no direct comparison between certain subtypes of stenting techniques, such as DK Crush versus Nano Crush, which limits our ability to draw definitive conclusions regarding the relative efficacy among different variations of the Crush and Culotte techniques. Conclusion This systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing Crush and Culotte stenting techniques in coronary bifurcation lesions found that Culotte stenting had better short-term outcomes at one year, particularly in reducing target lesion and vessel revascularization. However, by three years, Crush stenting—especially the DK Crush subtype—demonstrated superior effectiveness in lowering TLR and TVR, with SUCRA rankings further supporting the dominance of various Crush subtypes in other outcomes like stent thrombosis and cardiac death. Although no significant differences were observed in myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, cardiac death, or CABG between the two techniques, the overall evidence supports DK Crush as a more effective long-term strategy for complex PCI in bifurcation lesions. Ethics statement Not applicable Consent statement Not applicable Data availability Zenodo: Data for “Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis”, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16673506 . Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). 24 References 1. Barrett O, Hadad L, Abramowitz Y, et al. : Comparison of coronary bifurcation lesions stenting techniques- a network meta-analysis. Eur. Heart J. 2020; 41. Publisher Full Text 2. Chen X, Cui D, Chen Y, et al. : Crush is superior to Culotte in two-stent strategy for treatment of left main coronary artery bifurcations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Invest. Med. 2020; 43 : E35–E46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Yıldız M, Güner A, Demirci G, et al. : Long-term outcomes following double kissing crush or mini-culotte stenting for complex coronary bifurcation lesions: the EVOLUTE-CRUSH IV study. Herz. 2024; 49 : 361–370. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Rigatelli G, Zuin M, Vassilev D, et al. : Culotte versus the novel nano-crush technique for unprotected complex bifurcation left main stenting: difference in procedural time, contrast volume and X-ray exposure and 3-years outcomes. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2019; 35 : 207–214. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Wang R, Ding Y, Yang J, et al. : Stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis demonstrates superiority of double-kissing crush in complex lesions. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2021; 111 : 761–775. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 6. Chen S-L, Xu B, Han Y-L, et al. : Clinical Outcome After DK Crush Versus Culotte Stenting of Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions The 3-Year Follow-Up Results of the DKCRUSH-III Study.2015. 7. Mutlu D, Strepkos D, Carvalho PEP, et al. : Double Kissing Crush Versus Culotte for Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Insights From the PROGRESS-BIFURCATION Registry. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2025; 37 . PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 8. Mirizzi AM, Crimi G, Gritti V, et al. : P970 DK-crush is the best treatment strategy to reduce stent-oriented clinical outcome, results from a network meta-analysis of twenty-six randomized clinical trials comparing different stent techniques. Eur. Heart J. 2019. Publisher Full Text 9. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. : statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2020; 372 : 372. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 10. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. : RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; 366 : l4898. Publisher Full Text 11. Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. : ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355 : i4919. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 12. RStudio Team: RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R.2020. 13. Zheng XW, Zhao DH, Peng HY, et al. : Randomized comparison of the crush versus the culotte stenting for coronary artery bifurcation lesions. Chin. Med. J. 2016; 129 : 505–510. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 14. Chen SL, Xu B, Han YL, et al. : Comparison of double kissing crush versus culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: Results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective DKCRUSH-III study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013; 61 : 1482–1488. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 15. Freixa X, Almasood AA, Asif N, et al. : Long-term outcomes using a two-stent technique for the treatment of coronary bifurcations. Int. J. Cardiol. 2013; 168 : 446–451. Publisher Full Text 16. Kawamoto H, Takagi K, Chieffo A, et al. : Long-term outcomes following mini-crush versus culotte stenting for the treatment of unprotected left main disease: Insights from the milan and New-Tokyo (MITO) registry. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017; 89 : 13–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 17. Pavani M, Conrotto F, D’Ascenzo F, et al. : Long-term outcomes of different two-stenting bifurcation techniques for unprotected left main coronary bifurcation disease: a FAILS-2 substudy.2018. 18. Takagi K, Naganuma T, Chieffo A, et al. : Comparison between 1-and 2-Stent Strategies in Unprotected Distal Left Main Disease: The Milan and New-Tokyo Registry. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016; 9 : 9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 19. Erglis A, Kumsars I, Niemelä M, et al. : Randomized comparison of coronary bifurcation stenting with the crush versus the culotte technique using sirolimus eluting stents the nordic stent technique study. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2009; 2 : 27–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 20. Kervinen K, Niemelä M, Romppanen H, et al. : Clinical Outcome After Crush Versus Culotte Stenting of Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions The Nordic Stent Technique Study 36-Month Follow-Up Results.2013. 21. Shah DSM: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CRUSH VS. CULOTTE STENTING TECHNIQUES FOR BIFURCATION LESIONS IN PAKISTAN. J. Popul. Ther. Clin. Pharmacol. 2024; 2203–2210. Publisher Full Text 22. Di Gioia G , Sonck J, Colaiori I, et al. : Clinical outcome after coronary bifurcation stenting: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of PCI bifurcation techniques comprising 5,572 patients. Eur. Heart J. 2019; 40 . Publisher Full Text 23. Mou H, Yin L, Zhu F, et al. : Long-term prognosis of culotte versus different crush strategies in management of unprotected left main bifurcation coronary lesions: A meta-analysis. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2022; 72 : 1608–1614. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 24. Komalasari I, Adji AS, Billah A, et al. : Data for “Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis”. Zenodo. 2025. Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 26 Aug 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Cardiolgy and Vascular Medicine, Ramelan Navy Center Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia, Universitas Hang Tuah Fakultas Kedokteran, Surabaya, East Java, 60228, Indonesia 2 Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Hang Tuah Fakultas Kedokteran, Surabaya, East Java, 60228, Indonesia 3 Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Universitas Airlangga - General Academic Hospital Dr. Soetomo, Surabaya, Indonesia 4 Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Jember, East Java, 68121, Indonesia 5 Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Jakarta, 16424, Indonesia 6 Clinical Pathology Department, Universitas Hang Tuah Fakultas Kedokteran, Surabaya, East Java, 60228, Indonesia 7 Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sam Ratulangi, Manado, North Sulawesi, 95115, Indonesia Intan Komalasari Roles: Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Arga Setyo Adji Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Atiyatum Billah Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Supervision, Validation, Visualization Antonius Dwi Saputra Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Resources Diski Saisa Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Nadhifa Nurizzah Dhiyanisa Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Abdillah Maulana Satrioaji Roles: Conceptualization, Software, Supervision Verna Biutifasari Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing Yudi Her Oktaviano Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Derren David Christian Homenta Rampengan Roles: Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 26 Aug 2025, 14:823 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168528.1 Copyright © 2025 Komalasari I et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Komalasari I, Adji AS, Billah A et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :823 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168528.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: AWAITING PEER REVIEW AWAITING PEER REVIEW ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 26 Aug 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status AWAITING PEER REVIEW Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-823/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-823/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-823/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Komalasari I et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-823/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-823", templates : { twitter : "Long-Term Outcomes of Crush versus Culotte Stenting in Coronary.... Komalasari I et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-823/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/168528/185714") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "185714"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "410758": 0, "410759": 0, "410756": 0, "424452": 0, "410757": 0, "410754": 0, "424450": 0, "410755": 0, "424451": 0, "424448": 0, "410753": 0, "424449": 0, "410762": 0, "410760": 0, "410761": 0, "418078": 0, "429086": 0, "418079": 0, "429087": 0, "418076": 0, "429084": 0, "418077": 0, "429085": 0, "429082": 0, "418075": 0, "429083": 0, "429081": 0, "418084": 0, "418082": 0, "429090": 0, "418083": 0, "418080": 0, "429088": 0, "418081": 0, "429089": 0, "421102": 0, "421103": 0, "421101": 0, "414710": 0, "421110": 0, "414711": 0, "414708": 0, "421108": 0, "414709": 0, "421109": 0, "421106": 0, "421107": 0, "421104": 0, "421105": 0, "424446": 0, "424447": 0, "414716": 0, "414717": 0, "414714": 0, "429050": 0, "414715": 0, "414712": 0, "414713": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "3dc33c98-b7a8-4462-a080-8545176aada4"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });