Dataset Information

The importance of side branch preservation in the treatment of chronic total occlusions with bifurcation lesions.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The aim of this study was to identify the predictive factors for suboptimal result in side branch (SB) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) bifurcation lesions and clinical outcomes of patients with suboptimal result in SB.

Background

There is little evidence on the optimal strategy for bifurcation lesions in CTO.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 314 consecutive bifurcation lesions in CTO with SB ≥ 2.5 mm in 3 hospitals from March 2010 to June 2018. Patients were divided into the two groups based on the suboptimal SB treatment (SST) and optimal SB treatment (OST) groups. The baseline characteristics, procedural and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. This study also evaluated the predictors of suboptimal result in SB.

Results

Suboptimal result in SB occurred in 47 cases. Presence of stenosis in SB, bifurcations located within the occluded segment and sub-intimal tracking at SB ostium was an independent predictor of suboptimal result in SB. The cumulative incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) in all lesions was not significantly different between the two groups, however, TLR in right coronary artery (RCA) was significantly higher in the SST group. In the Cox regression analysis, suboptimal result in SB in RCA and sub-intimal tracking were independent predictors of TLR for MB. In patients with bifurcations located within the occluded segment, usage of two-stent technique was significantly lower in the SST group.

Conclusions

Meticulous procedures are required for SB preservation to improve not only SB prognosis but also MB, especially in RCA.

SUBMITTER: Adachi Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8449161 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal side branch (SB) treatment strategy after simple crossover stenting in bifurcation lesions is still controversial.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of a 1-stent strategy with simple crossover alone versus with an additional SB-opening procedure in patients with left main (LM) and non-LM coronary bifurcation lesions.MethodsPatients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with a 1-stent strategy for bifurcation lesions including LM were selected from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) III registry and divided into the simple crossover-alone group and SB-opening group. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the 5-year rate of target lesion failure (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion repeat revascularization).ResultsAmong 2,194 patients who underwent the 1-stent strategy, 1,685 (76.8%) patients were treated with simple crossover alone, and 509 (23.2%) patients were treated with an additional SB-opening procedure. Although the baseline SB angiographic disease was more severe in the SB-opening group, the final lumen diameter of the SB was larger. The 5-year observed target lesion failure rate was similar between the 2 groups (7.0% in the simple crossover vs. 6.7% in SB-opening group; hazard ratio: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.48; p = 0.947), even in the subgroup analyses including LM (9.5% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.442) and true bifurcation (5.3% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.362). The results were not changed after an inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. There was no difference in the overall and SB-related target lesion revascularization rate in both groups.ConclusionsThe long-term clinical outcome of the 1-stent strategy with simple crossover alone for coronary bifurcation lesions was acceptable compared to those of additional SB-opening procedures. (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting [COBIS] Registry III [COBIS III]; NCT03068494).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions remains challenging; a simple strategy has been preferred as of late, but the disadvantage is ostium stenosis or even occlusion of the side branch (SB). Only a few single-center studies investigating the combination of a drug-eluting stent in the main branch followed by a drug-eluting balloon in the SB have been reported. This prospective, multicenter, randomized study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of a paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) compared with regular balloon angioplasty (BA) in the treatment of non-left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions. METHODS:Between December 2014 and November 2015, a total of 222 consecutive patients with bifurcation lesions were enrolled in this study at ten Chinese centers. Patients were randomly allocated at a 1:1 ratio to a PEB group (n?=?113) and a BA group (n?=?109). The primary efficacy endpoint was angiographic target lesion stenosis at 9 months. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints included target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, target lesion failure, major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs), all-cause death, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and thrombosis in target lesions. The main analyses performed in this clinical trial included case shedding analysis, base-value equilibrium analysis, effectiveness analysis, and safety analysis. SAS version 9.4 was used for the statistical analyses. RESULTS:At the 9-month angiographic follow-up, the difference in the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion stenosis between the PEB (28.7% ± 18.7%) and BA groups (40.0%?±?19.0%) was -11.3% (95% confidence interval: -16.3% to -6.3%, Psuperiority <0.0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis, and similar results were recorded in the per-protocol analysis, demonstrating the superiority of PEB to BA. Late lumen loss was significantly lower in the PEB group than in the BA group (-0.06?±?0.32 vs. 0.18 ± 0.34?mm, P?<?0.0001). For intention-to-treat, there were no significant differences between PEB and BA in the 9-month percentages of MACCEs (0.9% vs. 3.7%, P?=?0.16) or non-fatal myocardial infarctions (0 vs. 0.9%, P?=?0.49). There were no clinical events of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, target lesion failure, all-cause death, cardiac death or target lesion thrombosis in either group. CONCLUSIONS:In de novo non-left main coronary artery bifurcations treated with provisional T stenting, SB dilation with the PEB group demonstrated better angiographic results than treatment with regular BA at the 9-month follow-up in terms of reduced target lesion stenosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325817; https://clinicaltrials.gov.

Project description:Background: At present, there are a variety of treatment strategies for percutaneous coronary intervention. The role of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of side branch for de novo coronary bifurcated lesions (CBL) is unclear. Objective: To examine the effect of DCB in side branch protection for de novo CBL. Methods: Electronic databases, including Pubmed, Embase, the Web of science, Cochrance library, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP were searched for studies that compared DCB with non-drug-coated balloon (NDCB) in side branch protection for de novo CBL from inception through July 7th, 2021. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary clinical outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD). The angiographic outcomes included side branch late lumen loss (LLL), minimum lumen diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis (DS) and binary restenosis (BR). The target lesion failure (TLF) was also analyzed. Results: A total of 10 studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials and 5 non-randomized observational studies, with 934 patients were included. Meta-analysis results of angiographic outcomes suggested that DCB group had the less LLL, DS and BR and the higher MLD compared with NDCB group at follow-up (P < 0.05). Meta-analysis results of clinical outcomes suggested that the significant difference in the TLR, MI and CD between DCB group and NDCB group has not been found yet (P > 0.05). However, the MACE of DCB group was significantly less than that of NDCB group at 9-month follow-up [OR = 0.21, 95%CI (0.05, 0.84), P = 0.03] and 12-month follow-up [OR = 0.45, 95%CI (0.22, 0.90), P = 0.02]. In addition, there was no significant difference in TLF between DCB group and NDCB group (P > 0.05). Conclusions: DCB had great effect in side branch protection for de novo CBL at short and medium-term follow-up with no reduction in the procedural success rate. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=267426, PROSPERO [Identifier: CRD42021267426].