“Main Vessel-Oriented” Treatment Strategy Versus “Open Side Branch” Treatment Strategy in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients With Culprit Bifurcation Lesions

Abstract

Percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions is associated with an increased risk of complications in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The study aimed to evaluate the in-hospital outcomes of patients with ACS with culprit bifurcation lesions who were treated with either a "main vessel-oriented" (MVO) treatment strategy or an "open side branch" (OSB) treatment strategy. This retrospective study included 575 consecutive patients with ACS. "MVO" and "OSB" treatment strategies were defined as primary/urgent percutaneous coronary intervention procedures performed by either totally ignoring the side branch (SB) or trying to maintain both main vessel and SB open with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow. Procedural success and major cardiac/cerebrovascular events during hospitalization were noted. MVO and OSB treatment strategies were performed on 384 and 191 patients, respectively. The procedural success rate was significantly higher in the OSB treatment strategy whereas major cardiac/cerebrovascular events rates were similar except for the contrast-induced nephropathy rate being slightly higher in OSB treatment strategy. Subgroup analysis revealed a significantly higher procedural success rate in OSB treatment strategy if the SB was located within the bifurcation core, especially in those where the diameter of SB was ≥2mm. In conclusion, our results suggest a better procedural result with SB protection attempts in patients with ACS with a culprit bifurcation lesion if the SB is originating within the bifurcation core and its diameter is ≥2mm. MVO treatment strategy may be preferred in most cases with minor SBs located distant to the bifurcation core because of the similar procedural success.