Randomized Comparisons Between Different Stenting Approaches for Bifurcation Coronary Lesions With Or Without Side Branch Stenosis
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention techniques using drug-eluting stents for bifurcation coronary lesions.
Background: The optimal bifurcation stenting technique needs to be evaluated.
Methods: The trial included 2 randomization studies separated by the presence of side branch (SB) stenosis for patients having non-left main bifurcation lesions. For 306 patients without SB stenosis, the routine final kissing balloon or leave-alone approaches were compared. Another randomization study compared the crush or single-stent approaches for 419 patients with SB stenosis.
Results: Between the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups for nondiseased SB lesions, angiographic restenosis occurred in 17.9% versus 9.3% (p=0.064), comprising 15.1% versus 3.7% for the main branch (p=0.004) and 2.8% versus 5.6% for the SB (p=0.50) from 214 patients (69.9%) receiving 8-month angiographic follow-up. Incidence of major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization over 1 year was 14.0% versus 11.6% between the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups (p=0.57). In another randomization study for diseased SB lesions, 28.2% in the single-stent group received SB stents. From 300 patients (71.6%) receiving angiographic follow-up, between the crush and single-stent groups, angiographic restenosis rate was 8.4% versus 11.0% (p=0.44), comprising 5.2% versus 4.8% for the main branch (p=0.90) and 3.9% versus 8.3% for the SB (p=0.12). One-year major adverse cardiac events rate between the crush and single-stent groups was 17.9% versus 18.5% (p=0.84).
Conclusions: Angiographic and clinical outcomes were excellent after percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents with any stent technique for non-left main bifurcation lesions once the procedure was performed successfully.
Ziyad M, Shah S, Rauf M, Shah S, Ullah S, Ullah R Cureus. 2025; 17(2):e78436.
PMID: 40046367 PMC: 11882106. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.78436.
Cheng Y, Chen Y, Huang B, Chen M J Geriatr Cardiol. 2024; 21(11):1047-1059.
PMID: 39734648 PMC: 11672355. DOI: 10.26599/1671-5411.2024.11.001.
Barycki M, Rola P, Wlodarczak A, Wlodarczak S, Pecherzewski M, Wlodarczak P Clin Cardiol. 2024; 47(11):e70043.
PMID: 39545312 PMC: 11565065. DOI: 10.1002/clc.70043.
Murasato Y, Kinoshita Y, Yamawaki M, Okamura T, Nagoshi R, Fujimura T Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2024; 40(1):79-88.
PMID: 39470918 DOI: 10.1007/s12928-024-01057-7.
Treatment Strategies for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: Complexity and Risk.
Owen B, Anderson H J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2024; 1(5):100435.
PMID: 39131466 PMC: 11307967. DOI: 10.1016/j.jscai.2022.100435.