Selection of stenting approach for coronary bifurcation lesions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chen SL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9707488 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Selection of stenting approach for coronary bifurcation lesions.
EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology 20210301 16
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBifurcation 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.ObjectivesTo 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.MethodsLiterature searches in Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase were conducted to identify prospective clinical trials from January 2007-July 2017.Results602 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%.ConclusionsTo 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.
| S-EPMC7299450 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC9627822 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsWe investigated whether routine T-stenting reduces restenosis of the side branch as compared with provisional T-stenting in patients with de novo coronary bifurcation lesions.Methods and resultsOur randomized study assigned 101 patients with a coronary bifurcation lesion to routine T-stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in both branches and 101 patients to provisional T-stenting with SES placement in the main branch followed by kissing-balloon angioplasty and provisional SES placement in the side branch only for inadequate results. Primary endpoint was per cent diameter stenosis of the side branch at 9 month angiographic follow-up. Angiographic follow-up in 192 (95%) patients revealed a per cent stenosis of the side branch of 23.0 +/- 20.2% after provisional T-stenting (19% with side-branch stent) and of 27.7 +/- 24.8% (P = 0.15) after routine T-stenting (98.2% with side-branch stent). The corresponding binary restenosis rates were 9.4 and 12.5% (P = 0.32), prompting re-intervention in 5.0 and 7.9% (P = 0.39), respectively. In the main branch, binary restenosis rates were 7.3% after provisional and 3.1% after routine T-stenting (P = 0.17). The overall 1 year incidence of target lesion re-intervention was 10.9% after provisional and 8.9% after routine T-stenting (P = 0.64).ConclusionsRoutine T-stenting with SES did not improve the angiographic outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention of coronary bifurcation lesions as compared with stenting of the main branch followed by kissing-balloon angioplasty and provisional side-branch stenting.
| S-EPMC2638653 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProvisional stenting (PS) is the main treatment for a majority of coronary bifurcation lesion and includes PS with 1-stent and PS with 2-stent. However, the treatment difference between PS with 1-stent and with 2-stent remains unclear in patients with the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and coronary bifurcation lesions.Materials and methodsOverall, 820 ACS patients with Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1 coronary bifurcation lesion who had completed 3-year follow-up were included and assigned to the PS with 1-stent (n = 519) or the PS with 2-stent (n = 301) according to the use of final stenting technique. The primary endpoint was the target lesion failure (TLF) at 3 years since stenting procedures.ResultsAt 3-year follow-up, TLF occurred in 85 (16.4%) patients in the PS with 1-stent group and 69 (22.9%) in the PS with 2-stent group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-2.17, p = 0.021), mainly driven by a higher rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) in the PS with 2-stent group (13.0% vs. 8.3%, HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04-2.61, p = 0.033). Complex bifurcations, side branch (SB) pretreatment, intravascular imaging guidance, and hyperlipidemia were the four predictors for 3-year TLF. SB pretreatment was associated with increased 3-year TLR, leading to an extremely higher 3-year TLF.ConclusionProvisional with 2-stent for patients with ACS is associated with a higher rate of 3-year TLF, mainly due to increased requirement of revascularization. SB pretreatment should be avoided for simple bifurcation lesion.
| S-EPMC9595024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient-specific and lesion-specific computational simulation of bifurcation stenting is an attractive approach to achieve individualized pre-procedural planning that could improve outcomes. The objectives of this work were to describe and validate a novel platform for fully computational patient-specific coronary bifurcation stenting. Our computational stent simulation platform was trained using n = 4 patient-specific bench bifurcation models (n = 17 simulations), and n = 5 clinical bifurcation cases (training group, n = 23 simulations). The platform was blindly tested in n = 5 clinical bifurcation cases (testing group, n = 29 simulations). A variety of stent platforms and stent techniques with 1- or 2-stents was used. Post-stenting imaging with micro-computed tomography (μCT) for bench group and optical coherence tomography (OCT) for clinical groups were used as reference for the training and testing of computational coronary bifurcation stenting. There was a very high agreement for mean lumen diameter (MLD) between stent simulations and post-stenting μCT in bench cases yielding an overall bias of 0.03 (- 0.28 to 0.34) mm. Similarly, there was a high agreement for MLD between stent simulation and OCT in clinical training group [bias 0.08 (- 0.24 to 0.41) mm], and clinical testing group [bias 0.08 (- 0.29 to 0.46) mm]. Quantitatively and qualitatively stent size and shape in computational stenting was in high agreement with clinical cases, yielding an overall bias of < 0.15 mm. Patient-specific computational stenting of coronary bifurcations is a feasible and accurate approach. Future clinical studies are warranted to investigate the ability of computational stenting simulations to guide decision-making in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and improve clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC8363606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronary bifurcation stenting constitutes 20% of all PCI performed. Given the extensive prevalence of bifurcation lesions, various techniques have sought to optimally stent the bifurcation to improve revascularization while also decreasing rates of stent thrombosis and lesion recurrence. Advanced techniques, such as planned two-stent approaches, have been shown to have improved outcomes but also require fluoroscopy and procedure time, posing an economic argument as well as a patient-outcome one.ObjectiveBecause of the many strategies posited in the literature, it becomes essential to objectively evaluate evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses to help determine the optimal stenting strategy.MethodsWe reviewed the clinical evidence on the efficacy of coronary bifurcation stenting.ResultsIn this paper, we review the most recent randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses on the efficacy of various stenting techniques and advances in stenting technologies published to gauge the current state of understanding and chart where the field is heading.ConclusionBifurcation stenting is a maturing problem in the field of interventional cardiology that is adapting to the needs of the patients and advances in technology.
| S-EPMC10201883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are controversies on optimal stenting strategy regarding true left main (LM) bifurcation lesions. The present study compared 1- and 2-stenting strategy for patients with true LM bifurcation lesions as differentiated by DEFINITION criteria. 928 patients with true LM bifurcation lesions (Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1) treated with DES were enrolled consecutively. 297 (32.0%) patients were identified as complex LM bifurcation, and 631 (68.0%) patients into simple LM bifurcation group according to DEFINTION criteria. Patients in complex vs. simple LM bifurcation group had significantly higher major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI] and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) rate at 30 days (7.8% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.01), 1 year (10.3% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.04), and numerically at 3 years (14.2% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.07), which was mainly driven by increased MI. Moreover, patients in the 2-stent strategy group had strong trend towards lower incidence of cardiac death in both complex LM bifurcation group (2.0% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.08) and simple LM bifurcation group (1.9% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.07). In conclusion, the complex bifurcation lesion criteria established in DEFINITION study was able to risk-stratify LM bifurcation patients. Two-stent technique yielded numerically lower 3-year cardiac mortality regardless of LM bifurcation complexity.
| S-EPMC7320001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundControversy still exists regarding the optimal treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions.AimsWe aimed to analyse the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare outcomes following different bifurcation stenting techniques.MethodsWe systematically searched for RCTs comparing different techniques published up to July 2022. We then conducted a pairwise meta-analysis to compare outcomes between provisional stenting (PS) versus upfront 2-stent techniques. Moreover, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare all strategies with each other. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).ResultsTwenty-four RCTs (6,890 patients) analysed PS, T-stenting, double-kissing (DK)-crush, crush, or culotte stenting. The pairwise meta-analysis did not reveal a significant difference between the PS and 2-stent techniques. However, the prespecified sensitivity analysis, which included RCTs exclusively enrolling patients with true bifurcation lesions, showed a lower rate of MACE following 2-stent techniques, and meta-regression indicated that a longer side branch lesion was associated with a greater benefit from the 2-stent strategy, which was the most apparent in RCTs with a mean lesion length >11 mm. NMA revealed that DK-crush was associated with the lowest MACE rate (odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.62; p<0.01; PS as a reference).ConclusionsOverall, 2-stent techniques were not significantly better than PS in terms of clinical outcomes. However, the results of the sensitivity analysis suggested that there might be a benefit of a 2-stent approach in selected patients with true bifurcation lesions, especially in the case of long side branch lesions. An NMA revealed that DK-crush was associated with the lowest event rates when compared with other techniques.
| S-EPMC10587845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study was aimed to compare different stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation disease (CBD).BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial for CBD; over the years, several stent techniques for bifurcation lesions have been used. Current guidelines recommend a provisional single-stent strategy as the preferred method for coronary artery bifurcation lesions. However, several randomized controlled trials (RCT) indicated that two-stent techniques showed better clinical outcomes.MethodsWe systematically searched Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science to include RCTs. The primary endpoint was the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). Secondary outcomes were cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target-lesion or target-vessel revascularization (TLR or TVR), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST). Finally, we used 26 RCTs and a total of 7257 individuals were randomly assigned to one of the 6 stent techniques and included in this network meta-analysis.ResultsIn our network meta-analysis, double-kissing (DK) crush was significantly more superior to other 5 stent techniques in MACEs: OR vs. provisional 0.40 (95% CI 0.28-0.55); vs. culotte 0.40 (95% CI 0.26-0.60). DK crush ranked the most effective treatment for MACE (100%), MI (75%), ST (83%), and TLR (100%) in the rank probabilities analysis. In patients with complex bifurcation lesion defined by DEFINITION criteria, DK crush was notably more efficacious than provisional, culotte, and T-stenting/T-stenting and protrusion (TAP) in MACEs (OR vs. provisional 0.26, 95% CI 0.13-0.52) and TLR (OR vs. provisional 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.58).ConclusionCompared with other stenting techniques, DK crush had a lower incidence of MACEs in CBD. DK crush was significantly associated with a lower rate of MACEs in patients with complex bifurcation lesions defined by the DEFINITION criterion.
| S-EPMC9242927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronary bifurcations exhibit localised turbulent flow and an enhanced propensity for atherothrombosis, platelet deposition and plaque rupture. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of bifurcation lesions is associated with an increased risk of thrombotic events. Such risk is modulated by anatomical complexity, intraprocedural factors and pharmacological therapy. There is no consensus on the appropriate PCI strategy or the optimal regimen and duration of antithrombotic treatment in order to decrease the risk of ischaemic and bleeding complications in the setting of coronary bifurcation. A uniform therapeutic approach meets a clinical need. The present initiative, promoted by the European Bifurcation Club (EBC), involves opinion leaders from Europe, America, and Asia with the aim of analysing the currently available evidence. Although mainly derived from small dedicated studies, substudies of large trials or from authors' opinions, an algorithm for the optimal management of patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, developed on the basis of clinical presentation, bleeding risk, and intraprocedural strategy, is proposed here.
| S-EPMC9725001 | biostudies-literature