Drug‐eluting stents in bifurcation lesions: To stent one branch or both?

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare two techniques to treat bifurcation lesions: a single drug-eluting stent (DES) implanted in the main branch combined with balloon dilatation for the side branch vs. stenting of both branches (double stent). Percutaneous coronary intervention in coronary bifurcation lesions remains challenging. Although DES reduce restenosis in lesions, the double stent procedure has not shown clear advantages over a single stent with balloon dilation. Fifty-three symptomatic patients with true bifurcation lesions were treated using either the double stent technique (n = 25) or one stent in the parent vessel plus balloon angioplasty of the side branch (n = 28). Procedural results and major adverse cardiac event rates (MACE: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR)) were compared. Angiographic procedural success (residual stenosis <30% in both branches) was 75% in the single stent group and 100% in the double stent group (P = 0.01). All differences were due to residual stenosis of the side branch. Clinical follow-up (6-18 months) was available for all patients; 90.5% of patients had a coronary angiography or nuclear stress test. Three patients (11%) in the single stent group and two (8%) in the double stent group had ischemia-driven TVR (P = NS). Asymptomatic angiographic restenosis (>50% diameter stenosis) in the ostium of the side branch was seen in two patients in the double-stent group. At 6 months, MACE-free was comparable between groups (89.3% vs. 88%, P = 0.7). When treating bifurcation lesions with sirolimus-eluting stents, restenosis following a single stent procedure is comparable to stenting both parent and side branch vessels. Thus, stenting the main-branch lesion, coupled with balloon angioplasty in the side branch, produces a high success rate and good clinical outcomes at 6 months.