Prognostic significance of the Medina classification in bifurcation lesion percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stents

Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations

The Bifurcation Academic Research Consortium (Bif-ARC) project originated from the need to overcome the paucity of standardization and comparability between studies involving bifurcation coronary lesions. This document is the result of a collaborative effort between academic research organizations and the most renowned interventional cardiology societies focused on bifurcation lesions in Europe, the United States, and Asia. This consensus provides standardized definitions for bifurcation lesions; the criteria to judge the side branch relevance; the procedural, mechanistic, and clinical endpoints for every type of bifurcation study; and the follow-up methods. Considering the complexity of bifurcation lesions and their evaluation, detailed instructions and technical aspects for site and core laboratory analysis of bifurcation lesions are also reported. The recommendations included within this consensus will facilitate pooled analyses and the effective comparison of data in the future, improving the clinical relevance of trials in bifurcation lesions, and the quality of care in this subset of patients.

Percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions

Bifurcation coronary artery disease is common as the development of atherosclerosis is facilitated by altered endothelial shear stress. Multiple anatomical and physiological factors need to be considered when treating bifurcation lesions. To achieve optimal results, various stenting techniques have been developed, each with benefits and limitations. In this state-of-the-art review we describe technically important characteristics of bifurcation lesions and summarise the evidence supporting contemporary bifurcation techniques.

Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations

The Bifurcation Academic Research Consortium (Bif-ARC) project originated from the need to overcome the paucity of standardization and comparability between studies involving bifurcation coronary lesions. This document is the result of a collaborative effort between academic research organizations and the most renowned interventional cardiology societies focused on bifurcation lesions in Europe, the United States, and Asia. This consensus provides standardized definitions for bifurcation lesions; the criteria to judge the side branch relevance; the procedural, mechanistic, and clinical endpoints for every type of bifurcation study; and the follow-up methods. Considering the complexity of bifurcation lesions and their evaluation, detailed instructions and technical aspects for site and core laboratory analysis of bifurcation lesions are also reported. The recommendations included within this consensus will facilitate pooled analyses and the effective comparison of data in the future, improving the clinical relevance of trials in bifurcation lesions, and the quality of care in this subset of patients.

Comparison of the Incidence of Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction in Bifurcation Lesions Between Medina (1,1,1) and (0,1,1) in Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is more frequently observed in true bifurcation lesions such as Medina (1,1,1) and (0,1,1). The aim of this study is to compare the incidence of PMI in elective PCI between Medina (1,1,1) and (0,1,1) bifurcation lesions. This was a retrospective, single-center study. We included 162 true bifurcation lesions, which were divided into the (1,1,1) group (n = 85) and the (0,1,1) group (n = 77). We compared the incidence of PMI between the two groups and performed multivariate logistic regression analysis using PMI as a dependent variable. The incidence of PMI was similar in the (1,1,1) group and the (0,1,1) group (12.9% versus 15.6%, P = 0.658). The final TIMI flow grade of the side branches and that of the main branches were also similar in the two groups. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, Medina classification (1,1,1) was not associated with PMI (odds ratio (OR), 0.996; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.379-2.621; P = 0.994), but the angle of the side branch < 45° (OR, 3.569; 95% CI, 1.320-9.654; P = 0.012), lesion length in a main vessel (per 10-mm increase) (OR, 1.508; 95% CI, 1.104-2.060; P = 0.010), and absence of side branch protection (OR, 3.034; 95% CI, 1.095-8.409; P = 0.033) were significantly associated with PMI. In conclusion, the Medina (1,1,1) bifurcation lesions did not increase the incidence of PMI as compared to Medina (0,1,1). However, the narrow side branch angle, diffuse long lesion, and absence of side branch protection were significantly associated with PMI. We should pay attention to these high-risk features in the treatment of true bifurcation lesions.

Impact of directional coronary atherectomy followed by drug-coated balloon strategy to avoid the complex stenting for bifurcation lesions

Although the simple single stenting rather than complex double stenting is recommended on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for bifurcation lesions, double stenting cannot always be avoided. We investigated the impact of directional coronary atherectomy (DCA), followed by drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment to reduce the number of stents and avoid complex stenting in PCI for bifurcation lesions and short-term patency. DCA treatment without stents was attempted for 27 bifurcation lesions in 25 patients, of those, 26 bifurcation lesions in 24 patients were successfully treated and 3-month follow-up angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were performed. Sixteen lesions (59.3%) were related to left main trunk distal bifurcations, and 7 (25.9%) were true bifurcation lesions. Among the true bifurcation lesions, 4 lesions (57.1%) needed 1 stent, and the other 3 lesions (42.9%) needed no stents. Among the non-true bifurcation lesions, 1 lesion (5.0%) needed bailout stent and other lesions (95.0%) needed no stents. According to DCA followed by DCB treatment, the angiographic mean diameter stenosis improved from 65.5 ± 15.0% to 7.8 ± 9.8%, and the mean plaque area in intravascular ultrasound improved from 80.4 ± 10.5% to 39.0 ± 11.5%, respectively. Angiographic and OCT late lumen loss values were 0.2 ± 0.6 mm and 1.4 ± 1.9 mm, respectively. No patient had in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and 3-month MACE. In conclusion, compared with standard provisional side branch stenting strategy, DCA followed by DCB treatment might reduce the number of stents, avoid complex stenting for major bifurcation lesions and provide good short-term outcomes.

Effect of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty on Side Branch Lesion and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with De Novo True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of paclitaxal-coated balloon (PCB) versus conventional balloon (CB) on side branch (SB) lesion and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with de novo true bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

In total, 219 patients with de novo true bifurcation lesions were enrolled and divided into PCB group (102 cases) and CB group (117 cases) according to angioplasty strategy in SB. Drug-eluting stent (DES) was implanted in main vessel (MV) for each subject. All subjects underwent a 12-month follow-up for late lumen loss (LLL), restenosis, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). MACEs included cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unstable angina requiring admission.

RESULTS

There were no differences in diameter, minimum lumen diameter (MLD), and stenosis for bifurcation lesions between the two groups before and immediately after PCI (P > 0.05). After 12-month follow-up, no differences occurred in MV-MLD and MV-LLL between the two groups (P > 0.05); SB-MLD in PCB group was higher than that in CB group (1.97 ± 0.36 mm vs. 1.80 ± 0.43 mm, P = 0.007); SB-LLL in PCB group was lower than that in CB group (0.11 ± 0.18 mm vs. 0.19 ± 0.25 mm, P = 0.024). Multivariate COX analyses indicated that PCB group had lower MACE risk than CB group (HR = 0.480, 95%CI 0.244-0.941, P = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

PCB could decrease SB-LLL and MACE risk in patients with de novo true coronary bifurcation lesion 12 months after single-DES intervention.

Provisional stenting or not provisional stenting: seven critical points for bifurcations treatment with a glimpse on left main bifurcation stenting

Stenting of coronary bifurcation lesions represents a challenge for the interventional cardiologist. A bifurcation lesion could be treated with several techniques. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to decide the strategical approach at the beginning of the procedure evaluating the patient's bifurcation anatomy, the angle between main and side branch, plaque burden at the level of the carina, and size of the side branch. Although it is clear that all bifurcation's treatment techniques have each one their advantages and disadvantages, provisional stenting remains the gold-standard technique, because it leaves the possibility to switch to other technical solutions with optimal angiographic and long-term clinical results. In this review, different tips and tricks for left main and bifurcation stenting are debated.