True coronary bifurcation lesions: meta-analysis and review of literature

Aim Percutaneous intervention of true coronary bifurcation lesions is challenging. Based on the results of randomized trials and registry data, the approach of stenting of main vessel only with balloon dilatation of the side branch has become the default approach for false bifurcation lesions except when a complication occurs or in cases of suboptimal result. However, the optimal stenting strategy for true coronary bifurcation lesions – to stent or not to stent the side branch – is still a matter of debate. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of the double stent technique (stenting of the main branch and side branch) over the single stent technique (stenting of main vessel only with balloon dilatation of the side branch) for treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions, with drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods Comparative studies published between January 2000 and February 2009 of the double stent technique vs. single stent technique with DES for true coronary bifurcations were identified using an electronic search and reviewed using a random effects model. The primary endpoints of our study were side-branch and main-branch restenoses, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at longest available follow-up. The secondary endpoints of our analysis were postprocedural minimal luminal diameter (MLD) of the side branch and main branch, follow-up MLD of side branch and main branch and stent thrombosis. Heterogeneity was assessed and sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the overall summary odds ratios (ORs). Results Five studies comprising 1145 patients (616 single stent and 529 double stent) were included in the analysis. Three studies were randomized comparisons between the two techniques for true coronary bifurcation lesions. Incomplete reporting of data in the primary studies was common. The lengths of clinical and angiographic follow-up ranged between 6 and 12 months and 6 and 7 months, respectively. Postprocedural MLD of the side branch was significantly smaller in the single stent group [standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.71, 95% CI −0.88 to −0.54, P < 0.000, I2 = 0%]. The odds of side-branch restenosis (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.47–2.67, P = 0.81, I2 = 76%), main-branch restenois (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56–1.39, P = 0.58, I2 = 0%), all-cause mortality (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.11–2.45, P = 0.41, I2 = 0%), MI (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.34–2.54, P = 0.87, I2 = 49%) and TLR (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46–1.65, P = 0.68, I2 = 0%) were similar between the two groups. Postprocedural MLD of the main branch [standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.08, 95% CI −0.42 to −0.26, P < 0.65, I2 = 67%], follow-up MLD of side branch (SMD −0.19, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.01, P < 0.31, I2 = 15%) and main branch MLD (SMD 0.17, 95% CI −0.18 to 0.542, P < 0.35, I2 = 65%) were also similar between the two groups. Conclusion In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for true coronary bifurcations, there is no added advantage of stenting both branches as compared with a conventional one-stent strategy. The results, however, need to be interpreted considering the poor study methods and/or poor quality of reporting in publications. We propose to move forward and consider the conduct of more systematic, well-designed and scientific trials to investigate the treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions.

[1]  F. Burzotta,et al.  Coronary bifurcation lesions: to stent one branch or both? A meta-analysis of patients treated with drug eluting stents. , 2010, International journal of cardiology.

[2]  Antonio Colombo,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 , 2009, Circulation.

[3]  F. Neumann,et al.  Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions , 2008, European heart journal.

[4]  Javier Botas Lesiones en bifurcación: la última gran frontera del intervencionismo coronario , 2008 .

[5]  J. Ivanov,et al.  Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation narrowings. , 2008, The American journal of cardiology.

[6]  Yuejin Yang,et al.  Comparative Study of Simple Versus Complex Stenting of Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions in Daily Practice in Chinese Patients , 2008, Clinical cardiology.

[7]  J. Botas Bifurcation lesions: the last great frontier for coronary interventions. , 2008, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[8]  A. Colombo,et al.  Predictors of restenosis after treatment of bifurcational lesions with paclitaxel eluting stents: A multicenter prospective registry of 150 consecutive patients , 2007, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[9]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  The clinical outcome of percutaneous treatment of bifurcation lesions in multivessel coronary artery disease with the sirolimus-eluting stent: insights from the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study part II (ARTS II). , 2007, European heart journal.

[10]  R. Kornowski,et al.  Drug‐eluting stents in bifurcation lesions: To stent one branch or both? , 2006, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[11]  P. Serruys,et al.  Single-vessel versus bifurcation stenting for the treatment of distal left main coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stenting era. Clinical and angiographic insights into the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) and Taxus-Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam C , 2006, American heart journal.

[12]  M. Niemelä,et al.  Randomized Study on Simple Versus Complex Stenting of Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions: The Nordic Bifurcation Study , 2006, Circulation.

[13]  Seung‐Jung Park,et al.  Comparison of simple and complex stenting techniques in the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation stenosis. , 2006, The American journal of cardiology.

[14]  Samin K. Sharma Update in management of coronary bifurcation lesions in the drug-eluting stent era. , 2006, Indian heart journal.

[15]  I. Iakovou,et al.  In-hospital and nine-month outcome of treatment of coronary bifurcational lesions with sirolimus-eluting stent. , 2005, The American journal of cardiology.

[16]  M. Pan,et al.  Rapamycin-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcated coronary lesions: a randomized comparison of a simple versus complex strategy. , 2004, American heart journal.

[17]  Samin K. Sharma,et al.  Simultaneous kissing stents (SKS) technique for treating bifurcation lesions in medium-to-large size coronary arteries. , 2004, The American journal of cardiology.

[18]  Lawrence Joseph,et al.  A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of drug-eluting stents , 2004, The Lancet.

[19]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Randomized Study to Evaluate Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Implanted at Coronary Bifurcation Lesions , 2004, Circulation.

[20]  M. Morice,et al.  Stenting of bifurcation lesions: a rational approach. , 2001, Journal of interventional cardiology.

[21]  J. Tobis,et al.  Bifurcation lesions: two stents versus one stent--immediate and follow-up results. , 2000, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.