Mohamed MO, Lamellas P, Roguin A, Oemrawsingh RM, Ijsselmuiden AJJ, Routledge H, van Leeuwen F, Debrus R, Roffi M, Mamas MA. Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Bifurcation Lesions According to Medina Classification.
J Am Heart Assoc 2022;
11:e025459. [PMID:
36000428 PMCID:
PMC9496427 DOI:
10.1161/jaha.122.025459]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
Abstract
Background
Coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) are frequently encountered in clinical practice and are associated with worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. However, there are limited data around the prognostic impact of different CBL distributions.
Methods and Results
All CBL percutaneous coronary intervention procedures from the prospective e‐Ultimaster (Prospective, Single‐Arm, Multi Centre Observations Ultimaster Des Registry) multicenter international registry were analyzed according to CBL distribution as defined by the Medina classification. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the hazard ratio (HR) of the primary outcome, 1‐year target lesion failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization), and its individual components between Medina subtypes using Medina 1.0.0 as the reference category. A total of 4003 CBL procedures were included. The most prevalent Medina subtypes were 1.1.1 (35.5%) and 1.1.0 (26.8%), whereas the least prevalent was 0.0.1 (3.5%). Overall, there were no significant differences in patient and procedural characteristics among Medina subtypes. Only Medina 1.1.1 and 0.0.1 subtypes were associated with increased target lesion failure (HR, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.3–5.5] and HR, 4.0 [95% CI, 1.6–9.0], respectively) at 1 year, compared with Medina 1.0.0, prompted by clinically driven target lesion revascularization (HR, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.1–8.6] and HR, 4.6 [95% CI, 1.3–16.0], respectively) as well as cardiac death in Medina 0.0.1 (HR, 4.7 [95% CI, 1.0–21.6]). No differences in secondary outcomes were observed between Medina subtypes.
Conclusions
In a large multicenter registry analysis of coronary bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, we demonstrate prognostic differences in 1‐year outcomes between different CBL distributions, with Medina 1.1.1 and 0.0.1 subtypes associated with an increased risk of target lesion failure.
Collapse