Provisional versus elective two-stent strategy for unprotected true left main bifurcation lesions: Insights from a FAILS-2 sub-study

Comparison between provisional and dual systematic stenting approach for left main bifurcation disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite recent advancements, challenges persist in determining the optimal stenting strategy for LM bifurcation disease. Hence, this systematic review aims to compare single provisional and systematic dual stenting for managing LM bifurcation disease. A systematic search was performed until January 14, 2024. For the effect measure, risk ratios (RRs) was calculated. This study included 22 studies with 10776 participants. The all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality revealed comparable outcomes between provisional and dual-systematic stenting (RR 1.13, CI95 %: 0.87-1.47, p 0.36, I2 59 %; RR 1.16, CI95 %: 0.73-1.84, p 0.63, I2 80 %). In addition, MACE, MI, TLR, TVR, and in stent thrombosis also showed similar findings. Subgroup analysis revealed that cohort studies was the source of heterogeneity in all-cause mortality, stent thrombosis, and TLR. This meta-analysis suggests comparable outcomes between provisional and dual-systematic stenting in managing LM bifurcation disease. Further study is needed to validate the outcomes of novel techniques.

Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for coronary left main (LM) bifurcation lesions remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared the medium and long-term follow-up clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies of LM bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

We systematically identified studies published within 5 years comparing single vs. systematic double stenting strategies for LM bifurcation lesions. The primary endpoint was medium-term (1 year) and long-term (at least 3 years) all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), target lesion revascularization (TLR), overall occurrence of stent thrombosis (ST), cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI).

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies with 7,318 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of the medium-term follow-up clinical outcomes, our pooled analysis showed that use of the systematic dual stenting strategy was associated with a lower ST risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.89, P = 0.02) and cardiac death risk (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21-0.89, P = 0.02) compared to the single stenting strategy; there was no significant difference between the two strategies regarding rates of all-cause death, MACE, TLR, and MI. Patients with long-term follow-up showed comparable observed clinical outcomes between the two strategies. Most importantly, for patients with true LM bifurcation, the risk of all-cause death, ST, and CV mortality following the systematic dual stenting strategy was significantly lower than the single stenting strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with LM bifurcation lesions, both the systematic dual stenting strategy and single stenting strategy demonstrated comparable results in terms of all-cause mortality during medium-term and long-term follow-up. However, the systematic dual stenting strategy showed a tendency towards lower incidence of ST and CV mortality compared to the single stenting strategy during medium-term follow-up. Consequently, the systematic dual stenting strategy yielded superior clinical outcomes for patients with LM bifurcation lesions.

Unprotected Left Main Bifurcation Stenting in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Two-Stent Technique versus One-Stent Technique

AIMS

There is little evidence guiding the choice between a one-stent and a two-stent approach in unprotected distal left main coronary artery disease (UDLMCAD) presenting as acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aim to compare these two techniques in an unselected ACS group.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a single center retrospective observational study, that included all patients with UDLMCAD and ACS undergoing PCI between 2014 and 2018. Group A underwent PCI with a one-stent technique (n = 41, 58.6%), Group B with a two-stent technique (n = 29, 41.4%). A total of 70 patients were included, with a median age of 63 years, including n = 12 (17.1%) with cardiogenic shock. There were no differences between Group A and B in terms of patient characteristics, including SYNTAX score (median 23). The 30-day mortality was 15.7% overall, and was lower in Group B (3.5% vs. 24.4%, p = 0.02). Mortality rate at 4 years was significantly lower in Group B (21.4% vs. 44%), also when adjusted in a multivariable regression model (HR 0.26, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, patients with UDLMCAD and ACS undergoing PCI using a two-stent technique had lower early and midterm mortality compared to one-stent approach, even after adjusting for patient-related or angiographic factors.

Provisional Strategy for Left Main Stem Bifurcation Disease: A State-of-the-Art Review of Technique and Outcomes

Left main coronary artery (LMA) disease jeopardizes a large area of myocardium and increases the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. LMCA disease is found in 5% to 7% of all diagnostic coronary angiographies, and more than 80% of the patients enrolled in recent large randomized controlled left main trials had distal left main bifurcation or trifurcation disease. Emerging clinical evidence from prospective all-comer registries and randomized trials has provided a solid basis for percutaneous coronary intervention as a treatment option in selected patients with unprotected LMCA disease; however, to date, no uniform recommendations as to optimal stenting strategy for LMCA bifurcation lesions exist. This review provides an overview of provisional stenting technique and escalation to 2-stent strategies in LMCA bifurcation lesions. Data from randomized controlled trials and registries are reviewed. Technical characteristics of optimal provisional LMCA stenting technique and angiographic and intravascular determinants of escalation are also summarized.

Meta-Analysis of Provisional Versus Systematic Double-Stenting Strategy for Left Main Bifurcation Lesions

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the clinical outcomes with provisional versus double-stenting strategy for left main (LM) bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Despite two recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and several observational reports, the optimal LM bifurcation PCI technique remains controversial.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled-Trials (CENTRAL), Clinicaltrials.gov, International Clinical Trial Registry Platform were leveraged for studies comparing PCI bifurcation techniques for LM coronary lesions using second-generation drug eluting stents (DES). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel or lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis.

RESULTS

Two RCTs and 10 observational studies with 7105 patients were included. Median follow-up duration was 42 months (IQR: 25.7). Double stenting was associated with a trend towards higher incidence of MACE (odds ratio [OR] 1.20; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.53) compared with provisional stenting. This was mainly driven by higher rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR 1.50; 95 % CI 1.07 to 2.11). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, or stent thrombosis. On subgroup analysis according to the study type, provisional stenting was associated with lower MACE and TLR in observational studies, but not in RCTs.

CONCLUSION

For LM bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES, a provisional stenting strategy was associated with a trend towards lower incidence of MACE driven by statistically significant lower rates of TLR, compared with systematic double stenting. These differences were primarily driven by observational studies. Further RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings.

Clinical outcomes after current generation drug-eluting stent implantation for ostial left circumflex lesions

BACKGROUND

There are no available data about clinical outcomes of simple stenting for ostial left circumflex (LCX) lesions using current generation drug-eluting stents (cDES).

OBJECTIVE

We assessed clinical outcomes after simple stenting using cDES for ostial LCX lesions.

METHODS

We identified 81 consecutive patients who underwent PCI using cDES for ostial LCX lesions at New Tokyo Hospital, Matsudo, Japan between January 2010 and December 2016. An ostial LCX lesion was defined as a lesion with more than 75% stenosis by visual assessment and within 3 mm of the left main (LM) stem. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF). TLF was defined as a composite of cardiac death, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and myocardial infarction (MI). Additionally, we also assessed the revascularization for LM to left anterior descending artery (LAD) after ostial LCX stenting.

RESULTS

The TLF rate at 3 years after PCI was 24.5%. Furthermore, the rate of TLR and revascularization for LM-LAD after ostial LCX stenting were significantly higher in patients who were previously undergone stent implantation in ostial segment of LAD.

CONCLUSION

Clinical outcomes after cDES implantation for ostial LCX lesion could be acceptable. However, it could have better to be avoided in patients who previously received stent implantation in ostial segment of LAD.

Clinical impact of bifurcation angle change between diastole and systole in complex stenting for left main distal bifurcation: The Milan and New-Tokyo (MITO) Registry

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the impact of pre-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) bifurcation angle change (BAC) on clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND

There are little available data about the impact of BAC in unprotected left main distal bifurcation lesions (ULMD) PCI.

METHODS

We identified consecutive 300 patients with ULMD underwent complex stenting using drug-eluting stent in three high-volume centers (Tokyo and Milan). We measured the widest BA of ULMD at both end-diastole and end-systole before stenting with two-dimensional quantitative coronary angiographic assessment and calculated the BAC value as a difference of two BA value in each lesion. We divided them into small and large BAC group according to the median BAC value (7.2°). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), which was defined as a composite of cardiac death, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

TLF rate at 3-year was significantly higher in the large BAC group than in the small BAC group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 5.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.40-10.1; p < .001). TLR rate for left main (LM) to left anterior descending artery (LAD) and ostial left circumflex artery (LCXos) at 3-year were significantly higher in large BAC group than in small BAC group (adjusted HR 5.91; 95% CI, 2.03-17.2; p = .001 and adjusted HR 10.6; 95% CI, 5.20-21.6; p < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A large BAC before stenting is strongly associated with adverse events after complex stenting for ULMD, mainly driven by repeat PCI for restenosis of the LCXos and of the LM-LAD.

Pooled prevalence of three major cardiovascular risk factors in patients undergoing left main bifurcation stenting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prevalence of the major risk factors in patients with Left Main (LM) bifurcation disease has not been yet clearly assessed, although it would important for building up bifurcation computational models. We perform a systematic review and metaanalysis on the three major cardiovascular risk factors in patients treated for LM bifurcation disease using either single or 2-stent strategy.

MEHTODS

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed and Google Scholar were queried to locate articles published between January 2015 to October 2020, comparing single- versus 2-stent strategy and reporting the prevalence of arterial hypertension (HT), hyperlipidaemia (HyperL) and diabetes mellitus (DM).

RESULTS

Out of a total of 230 articles, 7 articles were included into the final analysis. A total of 4559 patients were enrolled: 2666 (58.4%, mean age 60.4 years, 2318 males) and 1933 patients (42.3%, mean age 64.8 years, 1763 males) received a single- and 2-stent stenting strategies, respectively. A random effect model revealed a pooled prevalence of HT, HyperL and DM in 69.4%, 38.9% and in 31% of cases, respectively. Prevalence of HT was lower in patients treated with single versus 2-stent strategy (63 versus 66.7% of patients, p=0.01) while HyperL and DM were more represented in single versus 2-stent strategy: 41.6 versus 34.1% (p<0.001), and 32.5 versus 31.8% of patients (p=0.61), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LM bifurcation disease undergoing either single or 2- stent strategy, HT, HyperL and DM are frequent comorbidities. In severe LM disease requiring 2-stent technique, HT is the most prevalent risk factor.

Long-term outcomes of single stenting compared with double stenting strategy for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal interventions for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease have long been debated, and long-term clinical studies comparing single stenting to double stenting strategies for ULMCA are currently lacking.

METHODS

We plan to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing single stenting with double stents strategy for ULMCA disease. We will search PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science and Cochrane Library using a comprehensive strategy. The related conference proceedings and reference lists of the included studies will also be checked to identify additional studies. Two reviewers will screen retrieved records, extract information and assess the risk of bias independently. STATA software will be used to conduct data synthesis. There is no requirement of ethical approval and informed consent.

RESULTS

This study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

CONCLUSION

We hope it will provide a relatively comprehensive reference for clinical practice and future relevant clinical trials.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval and patient consent are not required, as this study is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY2020110030.

One- and 3-year outcomes of percutaneous bifurcation left main revascularization with modern drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for coronary left main (LM) bifurcation lesions remains controversial. We performed systematic review and meta-analysis comparing one and 3-year clinical outcomes of 1- and 2- stent strategies using modern drug eluting stents (DESs) for revascularization of LM bifurcation disease.

METHODS

We systematically identified all investigations published between January 2015 and February 2020 comparing the use of single versus double-stent strategies for the revascularization of LM bifurcation lesions. The primary endpoint was 1- and 3-years all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included target lesion revascularization (TLR), target lesion failure (TLF), major adverse cardiovascular vents (MACEs) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality while the tertiary outcome was overall occurrence of stent thrombosis (ST) at 1- and 3-years.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality rate both at 1 and 3-year follow-up. Single stent strategy was associated with a significantly lower risk of TLR (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62- 0.97, p = 0.03, I² = 61%) as well as of MACEs (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.97, I² = 24%) compared to 2-stent strategy. Conversely no significant differences between the two groups were observed in terms of TLF, CV mortality and ST during the same follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LM bifurcation disease, single stent strategy demonstrated lower rate of MACEs and TLR but was not superior to 2-stent strategy in terms of CV mortality, TLF and ST at 1 and 3-year follow-up.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: Latest Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper provides a synopsis of the best evidence to guide bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with a focus on recent studies. This is with the aim of guiding the interventional cardiologist in choosing the best, evidence-based technique, to treat commonly encountered coronary bifurcations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current evidence supports the use of provisional stenting for most anatomically suitable bifurcation lesions. Newer techniques for side branch protection in provisional stenting have been developed. When a two-stent strategy is required, use of a double-kissing crush technique is favoured, particularly in left main bifurcations. For bifurcation PCI, as in all complex procedures, intravascular imaging plays a key adjunctive role in improving procedural success. PCI for coronary bifurcation lesions is an ever-growing field with significant advancements in techniques and technology.