Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyze the mechanisms of lumen enlargement in bifurcation lesions, as assessed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), after percutaneous treatment with classic provisional “T” stenting with conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bifurcation dedicated BiOSS® (Balton, Warsaw, Poland) stent. In this prospective study between Jan and Dec/11, 32 patients with single de novo coronary bifurcation lesions suitable for treatment with BiOSS stents were randomized (1:1). IVUS method included pre- and post-procedure analysis in the parent vessel. Vessel, lumen and plaque cross-sectional areas were determined at the target lesion [minimum lumen area (MLA) site], proximal limb, distal limb, and “window”—defined as the segment between the carina (flow divider) and the vessel wall at the level of the side branch inflow. All lesions were treated with provisional approach and only 1 case in BiOSS group had a stent implanted in the side branch. Angiographic and IVUS results including MLA at the target site and proximal/distal references were similar. However, mean window length—largest diameter within the window, was similar at baseline, but BiOSS measured significantly longer at postprocedure (2.21 ± 0.37 vs. 1.76 ± 0.52 mm, p = 0.01). In addition, the magnitude of changes in vessel (27 ± 24 % vs. 9 ± 10 %, p = 0.01) and plaque (2 ± 26 % vs. −2 ± 26 %, p = 0.02) areas at the window were significantly different for DES versus BiOSS groups, respectively. The contribution of vessel extension for lumen enlargement represented 54 versus 43 %, 130 versus 46 %, 98 versus 80 % and 51 versus 19 % of the result achieved at the proximal limb, window, distal limb and MLA sites for DES versus BiOSS, respectively; as for plaque re-distribution, results were 36 versus 57 %, −30 versus 54 %, 2 versus 20 %, and 49 versus 81 %, at the proximal limb, window, distal limb and MLA sites, respectively. These results suggest different mechanisms of lumen enlargement comparing conventional DES versus BiOSS dedicated bifurcation stent, which can impact side branch compromise during procedure.
Highlights
Published data on BiOSSÒ Expert stent (Balton, Warsaw, Poland) Registry showed that this bifurcation dedicated device is very promising both for the operator as user‘s friendly and for patients in regard of good immediate and short-term clinical results [1]
The aim of this study was to analyze the mechanisms of lumen enlargement in bifurcation lesions, as assessed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), after percutaneous treatment with classic provisional ‘‘T’’ stenting with conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bifurcation dedicated BiOSSÒ (Balton, Warsaw, Poland) stent
Lumen and plaque cross-sectional areas were determined at the target lesion [minimum lumen area (MLA) site], proximal limb, distal limb, and ‘‘window’’—defined as the segment between the carina and the vessel wall at the level of the side branch inflow
Summary
Published data on BiOSSÒ Expert stent (Balton, Warsaw, Poland) Registry showed that this bifurcation dedicated device is very promising both for the operator as user‘s friendly and for patients in regard of good immediate and short-term clinical results [1]. Its delivery system is based on a bottle shaped balloon (BottleÒ, Balton, Poland) which restores ‘‘proximal’’ main vessel and ‘‘distal’’ main branch sizes without the need of an additional dilatation called kissing ballooning [1] As it was proven, the construction of the BiOSS stent prevents from carina displacement—the basic mechanism of side branch compromise during bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention [2]. The construction of the BiOSS stent prevents from carina displacement—the basic mechanism of side branch compromise during bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention [2] This step-up mid zone of the BiOSS stent created by two relatively short connecting struts (mean length 1.2 mm) on the one hand should secure good access to SB and stent‘s flexibility, but on the other may be its ‘‘weak point’’ due to lower radial forces and a low dose of an antiproliferative substance. This part of the BiOSS stent may be responsible for not so optimal results achieved immediately after its implantation and during late follow-up
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
