A Systematic Literature Review of Three Stenting Strategies for Bifurcation Lesions in Coronary Artery Disease

Overview

Journal J Health Econ Outcomes Res

Specialty Public Health

Date 2020 Jul 21

PMID 32685583

Authors

Larragem Parsley-Raines

Dominique M Brandt

Dillon L Carr

Sabrina Uhry

Eileen S Alexander

Stephanie A Donauer

Peter J Mallow

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Bifurcation lesions represent 15-20% of all patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary artery disease. The provisional 1-stent stenting strategy is the preferred strategy to treat bifurcation lesions. Other strategies used to treat bifurcation lesions include 2-stent complex stenting strategies and the Tryton Side Branch Stent (TSB)-a dedicated side-branch stent for bifurcation lesions, which gained FDA approval in March 2017.

Objectives: To conduct a systematic literature review of the safety and effectiveness of three stenting strategies (provisional, complex, and Tryton Side Branch Stent) for bifurcation lesions with a side-branch diameter ≥2.25 mm, undergoing PCI.

Methods: Literature searches in Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase were conducted to identify prospective clinical trials from January 2007-July 2017.

Results: 602 articles were identified. Nine articles (6275 patients) met all inclusion criteria. Seven studies (5282 patients) compared provisional to complex stenting strategies. Two studies (993 patients) compared provisional to the TSB. Outcomes of interest reported were target vessel failure in 2 studies, major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (cardiac death, all myocardial infarction, ischemic driven target legion revascularization TLR) in 5 studies. For target vessel failure, the provisional strategy ranged from 5.6% to 15.6 %; complex at 7.2% (one study); and TSB from 11.3% to 17.4%. For MACE, provisional strategy ranged from 8%-13.2%; complex from 11.9%-15.2%; and TSB from 8.2%-18.6%.

Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first review comparing three bifurcation lesion stenting strategies. Significant heterogeneity in the study design of the nine studies reviewed prevented a meta-analysis. A clinical trial comparing the TSB to both the provisional and complex strategies would provide better inference on the safety and effectiveness when comparing strategies.

References

Bennett J, Dubois C . Coronary bifurcation lesions: is less more?. J Thorac Dis. 2016; 8(10):E1351-E1354. PMC: 5107532. DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2016.10.32. View

Chen S, Santoso T, Zhang J, Ye F, Xu Y, Fu Q . A randomized clinical study comparing double kissing crush with provisional stenting for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the DKCRUSH-II (Double Kissing Crush versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary.... J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57(8):914-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.10.023. View

Colombo A, Bramucci E, Sacca S, Violini R, Lettieri C, Zanini R . Randomized study of the crush technique versus provisional side-branch stenting in true coronary bifurcations: the CACTUS (Coronary Bifurcations: Application of the Crushing Technique Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stents) Study. Circulation. 2008; 119(1):71-8. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.808402. View

Gao X, Zhang Y, Tian N, Wu W, Li M, Bourantas C . Stenting strategy for coronary artery bifurcation with drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials and systematic review. EuroIntervention. 2014; 10(5):561-9. DOI: 10.4244/EIJY14M06_06. View

Chen S, Santoso T, Zhang J, Ye F, Xu Y, Fu Q . Clinical Outcome of Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting of Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions: The 5-Year Follow-Up Results From a Randomized and Multicenter DKCRUSH-II Study (Randomized Study on Double Kissing Crush Technique Versus.... Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(2). PMC: 5319391. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004497. View

Lesiak M . The Need For Dedicated Bifurcation Stents: A Critical Analysis. Interv Cardiol. 2018; 11(2):124-127. PMC: 5808732. DOI: 10.15420/icr.2016:22:2. View

Hildick-Smith D, de Belder A, Cooter N, Curzen N, Clayton T, Oldroyd K . Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies. Circulation. 2010; 121(10):1235-43. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.888297. View

Louvard Y, Medina A . Definitions and classifications of bifurcation lesions and treatment. EuroIntervention. 2015; 11 Suppl V:V23-6. DOI: 10.4244/EIJV11SVA5. View

Chen S, Sheiban I, Xu B, Jepson N, Paiboon C, Zhang J . Impact of the complexity of bifurcation lesions treated with drug-eluting stents: the DEFINITION study (Definitions and impact of complEx biFurcation lesIons on clinical outcomes after percutaNeous coronary IntervenTIOn using drug-eluting steNts). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7(11):1266-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.04.026. View

10.

Park S, Ahn J, Kim Y, Park D, Yun S, Lee J . Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(13):1204-12. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1415447. View

11.

Genereux P, Kini A, Lesiak M, Kumsars I, Fontos G, Slagboom T . Outcomes of a dedicated stent in coronary bifurcations with large side branches: A subanalysis of the randomized TRYTON bifurcation study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 87(7):1231-41. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.26240. View

12.

Genereux P, Kumsars I, Lesiak M, Kini A, Fontos G, Slagboom T . A randomized trial of a dedicated bifurcation stent versus provisional stenting in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(6):533-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.11.031. View

13.

Steigen T, Maeng M, Wiseth R, Erglis A, Kumsars I, Narbute I . Randomized study on simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: the Nordic bifurcation study. Circulation. 2006; 114(18):1955-61. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.664920. View

14.

Zhang F, Dong L, Ge J . Simple versus complex stenting strategy for coronary artery bifurcation lesions in the drug-eluting stent era: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart. 2009; 95(20):1676-81. DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2009.168641. View

15.

Nairooz R, Saad M, Elgendy I, Mahmoud A, Habash F, Sardar P . Long-term outcomes of provisional stenting compared with a two-stent strategy for bifurcation lesions: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart. 2017; 103(18):1427-1434. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310929. View

16.

Ferenc M, Gick M, Kienzle R, Bestehorn H, Werner K, Comberg T . Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. Eur Heart J. 2008; 29(23):2859-67. PMC: 2638653. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn455. View

17.

Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327(7414):557-60. PMC: 192859. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. View

18.

Di Mario C, Pijls N . An introduction to provisional stenting. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent. 2002; 4(2):59-65. DOI: 10.1080/146288401753258510. View

19.

Hildick-Smith D, Behan M, Lassen J, Chieffo A, Lefevre T, Stankovic G . The EBC TWO Study (European Bifurcation Coronary TWO): A Randomized Comparison of Provisional T-Stenting Versus a Systematic 2 Stent Culotte Strategy in Large Caliber True Bifurcations. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(9). DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003643. View

20.

Ford T, McCartney P, Corcoran D, Collison D, Hennigan B, McEntegart M . Single- Versus 2-Stent Strategies for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials With Long-Term Follow-up. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7(11). PMC: 6015365. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.118.008730. View