The impact of the extent of side branch disease on outcomes following bifurcation stenting.
coronary bifurcation
outcome
side branch lesion
stenting
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
received:
12
10
2019
revised:
25
01
2020
accepted:
25
02
2020
pubmed:
10
3
2020
medline:
9
2
2021
entrez:
10
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To define the impact of side branch (SB) lesion length on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on bifurcation lesions. The role of the SB lesion length remains questionable in PCI planning and its implication on clinical outcome is controversial. Data from the retrospective multicenter EBC-P2BiTO registry were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction excluding periprocedural, or stent thrombosis at 13 months median follow-up (IQR 11-28). By using propensity scores for inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), the comparison of treatment groups was adjusted to correct for potential confounding. Among 1,252 patients, SB was normal in 489 (39%), diseased in 763 (61%) cases. MACE occurred in 68 patients (5.4%). The optimal discriminant SB lesion length for MACE was ≥10 mm, with an area under the curve of 0.71 (p < .01). The incidence of MACE was higher among patients with SB lesions ≥10 mm (8%) than with normal SB (4.1%) (hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-5.3; p = .001, IPTW-adjusted) or SB lesions <10 mm (5.1%) (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3; p = .048, IPTW-adjusted), being similar between these last two groups. In bifurcation PCI, SB lesion length ≥ 10 mm identifies patients at higher risk of MACE than those with <10 mm SB lesions and those without SB disease, considering that no differences were observed among these last two groups. Careful planning is mandatory when approaching bifurcations with long SB lesions.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
To define the impact of side branch (SB) lesion length on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on bifurcation lesions.
BACKGROUND
The role of the SB lesion length remains questionable in PCI planning and its implication on clinical outcome is controversial.
METHODS
Data from the retrospective multicenter EBC-P2BiTO registry were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction excluding periprocedural, or stent thrombosis at 13 months median follow-up (IQR 11-28). By using propensity scores for inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), the comparison of treatment groups was adjusted to correct for potential confounding.
RESULTS
Among 1,252 patients, SB was normal in 489 (39%), diseased in 763 (61%) cases. MACE occurred in 68 patients (5.4%). The optimal discriminant SB lesion length for MACE was ≥10 mm, with an area under the curve of 0.71 (p < .01). The incidence of MACE was higher among patients with SB lesions ≥10 mm (8%) than with normal SB (4.1%) (hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-5.3; p = .001, IPTW-adjusted) or SB lesions <10 mm (5.1%) (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3; p = .048, IPTW-adjusted), being similar between these last two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
In bifurcation PCI, SB lesion length ≥ 10 mm identifies patients at higher risk of MACE than those with <10 mm SB lesions and those without SB disease, considering that no differences were observed among these last two groups. Careful planning is mandatory when approaching bifurcations with long SB lesions.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E84-E92Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Lassen JF, Burzotta F, Banning AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for the left main stem and other bifurcation lesions: 12th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2018;13(13):1540-1553.
Medina A, Suarez de Lezo J, Pan M. A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesions. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2006;59(2):183.
Park TK, Park YH, Song YB, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of true and non-true bifurcation lesions according to medina classification-results from the COBIS (COronary BIfurcation Stent) II Registry. Circ J. 2015;79(9):1954-1962.
Zimarino M, Briguori C, Amat-Santos IJ, et al. Mid-term outcomes after percutaneous interventions in coronary bifurcations. Int J Cardiol. 2019;283:78-83.
Perfetti M, Fulgenzi F, Radico F, et al. Calcific lesion preparation for coronary bifurcation stenting. Cardiol J. 2019;26(5):429-437.
Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(20):2551-2567.
Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation. 2007;115(17):2344-2351.
Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661-3679.
Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083-3107.
Xie J, Liu C. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test with inverse probability of treatment weighting for survival data. Stat Med. 2005;24(20):3089-3110.
Austin PC. Variance estimation when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with survival analysis. Stat Med. 2016;35(30):5642-5655.
Zimarino M, Curzen N, Cicchitti V, De Caterina R. The adequacy of myocardial revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(3):1748-1757.
Zimarino M, Corcos T, Favereau X, et al. Rotational coronary atherectomy with adjunctive balloon angioplasty for the treatment of ostial lesions. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1994;33(1):22-27.
Kim HY, Doh JH, Lim HS, et al. Identification of coronary artery side branch supplying myocardial mass that may benefit from revascularization. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(6):571-581.
Chen SL, Ye F, Zhang JJ, et al. Randomized comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided provisional stenting of true coronary bifurcation lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting echnique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(4):536-546.
Furukawa E, Hibi K, Kosuge M, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors of side branch occlusion in bifurcation lesions after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ J. 2005;69(3):325-330.
Hahn JY, Chun WJ, Kim JH, et al. Predictors and outcomes of side branch occlusion after main vessel stenting in coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the COBIS II Registry (COronary BIfurcation Stenting). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(18):1654-1659.
Dou K, Zhang D, Xu B, et al. An angiographic tool based on visual estimation for risk prEdiction of side branch OccLusion in coronary bifurcation interVEntion: the V-RESOLVE score system. EuroIntervention. 2016;11(14):e1604-e1611.
Zhao Z, Zhang D, Xu B, et al. Is side branch lesion length an independent predictor of acute side branch occlusion in provisional strategy? Analysis of 524 consecutive bifurcation lesions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91(S1):599-607.
Colombo A, Bramucci E, Sacca S, et al. Randomized study of the crush technique versus provisional side-branch stenting in true coronary bifurcations: the CACTUS (Coronary Bifurcations: Application of the Crushing Technique Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stents) Study. Circulation. 2009;119(1):71-78.
Ferenc M, Gick M, Kienzle RP, et al. Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(23):2859-2867.
Hildick-Smith D, de Belder AJ, Cooter N, et al. Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies. Circulation. 2010;121(10):1235-1243.
Steigen TK, Maeng M, Wiseth R, et al. Randomized study on simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: the Nordic bifurcation study. Circulation. 2006;114(18):1955-1961.
Zimarino M, Corazzini A, Ricci F, Di Nicola M, De Caterina R. Late thrombosis after double versus single drug-eluting stent in the treatment of coronary bifurcations: a meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(7):687-695.
Chen SL, Zhang JJ, Han Y, et al. Double kissing crush versus provisional stenting for left main distal bifurcation lesions: DKCRUSH-V randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(21):2605-2617.
Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. EuroIntervention. 2019;14(14):1435-1534.
Zimarino M, Renda G, De Caterina R. Optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy in recipients of coronary drug-eluting stents. Drugs. 2005;65(6):725-732.
Collet C, Onuma Y, Cavalcante R, et al. Quantitative angiography methods for bifurcation lesions: a consensus statement update from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2017;13(1):115-123.
Lansky A, Tuinenburg J, Costa M, et al. Quantitative angiographic methods for bifurcation lesions: a consensus statement from the European Bifurcation Group. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;73(2):258-266.
Muramatsu T, Grundeken MJ, Ishibashi Y, et al. Comparison between two- and three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography bifurcation analyses for the assessment of bifurcation lesions: a subanalysis of the TRYTON pivotal IDE coronary bifurcation trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86(3):E140-E149.
Moore JE Jr, Timmins LH, Ladisa JF Jr. Coronary artery bifurcation biomechanics and implications for interventional strategies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76(6):836-843.