Choice of stenting strategy in true coronary artery bifurcation lesions

Abstract

The optimal stenting strategy in true coronary artery bifurcation lesions has not been determined. In this study, a strategy of always stenting both the main vessel and the side branch (MV plus SB) was compared with a strategy of stenting the MV only with optional stenting of the SB. Stents used were sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents. A total of 108 patients with true coronary bifurcation lesions were randomly assigned to either routine stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) in both the branches (group MV plus SB) or provisional stenting with DES placement in the main branch and DES placement in the SB only if MV stenting alone provided inadequate results (group MV). The primary end points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 8 months, including myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and stent thrombosis or target vessel revascularization by either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. Angiographic follow-up revealed 28.91+/-20.43% stenosis of the SB after provisional stenting and 18.93+/-15.34% (P<0.01) after routine stenting. The corresponding binary restenosis rates were 35.2 and 14.8% (P=0.015). SB stents were implanted in 16.7% of patients in the provisional stenting group and 94.4% of patients in the routine stenting group. In the main branch, binary restenosis rates prebifurcation were 11.1% after provisional and 7.4% after routine stenting (P=0.51), whereas binary restenosis rates postbifurcation were 14.8 and 9.3% (P=0.38), respectively. The overall 8-month incidence of target lesion reintervention was 31.5% after provisional and 7.4% after routine stenting (P<0.01), and cumulative MACE were 38.9 and 11.1% (P<0.01), respectively. Routine stenting significantly improved the MACE outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention in true coronary bifurcation and bifurcation angle of 60 or less lesions as compared with provisional stenting.