Comparison of Outcomes Between 1- and 2-Stent Techniques for Medina Classification 0.0.1 Coronary Bifurcation Lesions
- PMID: 37565964
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2023.06.013
Comparison of Outcomes Between 1- and 2-Stent Techniques for Medina Classification 0.0.1 Coronary Bifurcation Lesions
Abstract
Background: Although Medina 0.0.1 bifurcation lesions are often treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in real-world practice, the optimal revascularization strategy for this lesion is uncertain.
Objectives: The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between 1- and 2-stent strategies in patients treated with PCI for Medina 0.0.1 bifurcation lesions.
Methods: The extended BIFURCAT (Combined Insights From the Unified RAIN [Very Thin Stents for Patients with Left Main or Bifurcation in Real Life] and COBIS [Coronary Bifurcation Stenting] Bifurcation Registries) registry was obtained by patient-level merging the dedicated bifurcation COBIS II, III, and RAIN registries. Among 8,434 patients with bifurcation lesions undergoing PCI, 345 (4.1%) with Medina 0.0.1 lesions were selected for the current analysis. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac event (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis) at 800 days.
Results: In the total population, 209 patients (60.6%) received PCI with a 1-stent strategy and the remaining 136 patients (39.4%) with a 2-stent strategy. There was a tendency for higher use of a 1-stent strategy over time (36.0%, 47.4%, and 90.4% in 2003-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2017, respectively; P for trend < 0.001). For the treatment of Medina 0.0.1 lesions, there was no significant difference in the risk of MACE between 1- and 2-stent strategies (1 stent vs 2 stent, 14.3% vs 13.9%; HR: 1.034; 95% CI: 0.541-1.977; P = 0.92). The risk of MACE was also not significantly different when stratifying into 3 groups (1-stent crossover only, 1-stent with strut opening, and 2-stent strategy).
Conclusions: In patients with a Medina 0.0.1 type bifurcation lesion, PCI with a 1-stent strategy showed comparable outcomes to that of a 2-stent strategy. (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting II [COBIS II]; NCT01642992; Coronary Bifurcation Stenting III [COBIS III]; NCT03068494; Very Thin Stents for Patients with Left Main or Bifurcation in Real Life [RAIN]; NCT03544294).
Keywords: 0.0.1; Medina classification; bifurcation; outcomes; percutaneous coronary intervention; stent technique.
Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by the Korean Bifurcation Club (COBIS III) and the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology (COBIS II and III). The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
Comment in
-
How To, Not When To: Treating the Diseased Branch of a Bifurcation Lesion.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023 Sep 11;16(17):2094-2096. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2023.06.031. Epub 2023 Aug 9. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023. PMID: 37565965 No abstract available.
-
An Alternative Approach to a Medina 0.0.1 Bifurcation Lesion.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023 Oct 23;16(20):2576. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2023.08.033. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023. PMID: 37879815 No abstract available.
-
Reply: An Alternative Approach to a Medina 0.0.1 Bifurcation Lesion.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023 Oct 23;16(20):2577. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2023.09.008. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023. PMID: 37879816 No abstract available.
-
Postoperative Management Equally Affects Patient Outcomes After PCI.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023 Dec 11;16(23):2937. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2023.10.044. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023. PMID: 38092505 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous