Comparing two-stent strategies for bifurcation coronary lesions: which vessel should be stented first, the main vessel or the side branch?

Application of the MADS classification system in a "mega mammoth" stent trial: Feasibility and preliminary clinical implications

OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND

We attempted to test the feasibility of application of the MADS classification system in the largest stent trial to date and evaluate the preliminary clinical implications of this approach.

METHODS

In the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial, testing two different antiplatelet strategies in patients undergoing PCI with bivalirudin and biolimus-eluting stents, the e-CRF was dedicated to bifurcation treatment according to the MADS classification. Based on this e-CRF, the techniques used for bifurcations treatment in GLOBAL LEADERS were described and compared with two large, all-comer registries of bifurcations treatment (I-BIGIS and COBIS), used as historical controls.

RESULTS

Among 15,991 patients enrolled in the trial, 22,921 lesions treated at the index and staged procedure were available for analysis and 2,757 of these lesions were bifurcations and 7 were trifurcation lesions. The e-CRF-based MADS classification was achieved in 2,757 of these lesions (100%). 80.3% of bifurcations were treated using a single stent, 18.9% using 2 stents and 0.7% using 3 stents. Overall, the "main across side first" approach (A) was used in 77.4% with the "side branch first" approach (S) being the second most frequently used technique (10.2%). A single stent was used in the majority of the "A" approach (87.9%). A reduction in the use of 2-stent techniques (from 33.9 to 18.9%) was observed between GLOBAL LEADERS and I-BIGIS. The "A" approach was the most frequently used technique in GLOBAL LEADERS, while in COBIS the "S" strategy was most frequently employed.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the MADS classification through an e-CRF was feasible in the largest stent trial today and provided useful information about the trends observed overtime in the treatment of bifurcation lesions.

Predictors for Side Branch Failure During Provisional Strategy of Coronary Intervention for Bifurcation Lesions (from the Korean Bifurcation Registry)

The most favored strategy for bifurcation lesion is stenting main vessel with provisional side branch (SB) stenting. This study was performed to elucidate predictors for SB failure during this provisional strategy. The study population was patients from 16 centers in Korea who underwent drug-eluting stent implantation for bifurcation lesions with provisional strategy (1,219 patients and 1,236 lesions). On multivariate analysis, the independent predictors for SB jailing after main vessel stenting were SB calcification, large SB reference diameter, severe stenosis of SB, and not taking clopidogrel. Regarding SB compromise, however, the independent predictors were true bifurcation lesion and small SB reference diameter, whereas possible predictors were parent vessel thrombus and parent vessel total occlusion. In addition, SB predilation helps us to get favorable SB outcome. The diameter of SB ostium after main vessel stenting became similar between severe SB lesions treated with predilation and mild SB lesions not treated with predilation. In conclusion, SB calcification, less clopidogrel use, large SB reference diameter, and high SB diameter stenosis are independent predictors for SB jailing, and true bifurcation and small SB reference diameter are independent predictors for SB compromise after main vessel stenting.

Comparison of Angiographic Outcomes of Side Branch Ostium at Bifurcation Coronary Lesion between Two-stent and One-stent Techniques

Although the favored strategy for coronary bifurcation intervention is stenting main vessel with provisional side branch (SB) stenting, we occasionally use two-stent strategy. The objective of this study was to investigate the angiographic outcome of SB ostium in two-stent group, compared with one-stent group. We analyzed 199 patients with bifurcation lesion who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent and follow up angiography. The patients were divided into one-stent group (167 lesions, 158 patients) and two-stent group (41 lesions, 41 patients). Prior to intervention, SB ostium minimal luminal diameter (MLD) was smaller in two-stent group than in one-stent group (1.08±0.55 mm vs. 1.39±0.60 mm; P=0.01). But, immediately after PCI, SB MLD of two-stent group became greater than that of one-stent group (2.41±0.40 mm vs. 1.18±0.68 mm; P<0.01). Six to nine months after PCI, this angiographic superiority in SB MLD of two-stent group persisted (1.56±0.71 mm vs. 1.13±0.53 mm; P<0.01), although there was larger late loss in two-stent group (0.85±0.74 mm vs. 0.05±0.57 mm; P<0.01). In terms of target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization rates, one-stent group showed better results than two-stent group. We could attain wider long term SB ostium after two-stent strategy than after one-stent strategy.