Randomized Comparison of Final Kissing Balloon Dilatation Versus No Final Kissing Balloon Dilatation in Patients With Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated With Main Vessel Stenting: The Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study III

Background— It is unknown whether the preferred 1-stent bifurcation stenting approach with stenting of the main vessel (MV) and optional side branch stenting using drug-eluting stents should be finalized by a kissing balloon dilatation (FKBD). Therefore, we compared strategies of MV stenting with and without FKBD. Methods and Results— We randomized 477 patients with a bifurcation lesion to FKBD (n=238) or no FKBD (n=239) after MV stenting. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events: cardiac death, non–procedure-related index lesion myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis within 6 months. The 6-month major adverse cardiac event rates were 2.1% and 2.5% (P=1.00) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. Procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and more contrast media was needed in the FKBD group than in the no-FKBD group. Three hundred twenty-six patients had a quantitative coronary assessment. At 8 months, the rate of binary (re)stenosis in the entire bifurcation lesion (MV and side branch) was 11.0% versus 17.3% (P=0.11), in the MV was 3.1% versus 2.5% (P=0.68), and in the side branch was 7.9% versus 15.4% (P=0.039) in the FKBD versus no-FKBD groups, respectively. In patients with true bifurcation lesions, the side branch restenosis rate was 7.6% versus 20.0% (P=0.024) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. Conclusions— MV stenting strategies with and without FKBD were associated with similar clinical outcomes. FKBD reduced angiographic side branch (re)stenosis, especially in patients with true bifurcation lesions. The simple no-FKBD procedures resulted in reduced use of contrast media and shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times. Long-term data on stent thrombosis are needed. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00914199.

[1]  A. Baumbach,et al.  Randomized Trial of Simple Versus Complex Drug-Eluting Stenting for Bifurcation Lesions: The British Bifurcation Coronary Study: Old, New, and Evolving Strategies , 2010, Circulation.

[2]  G. Wassmer,et al.  Interventional Therapy of Bifurcation Lesions: A TIMI Flow-Guided Concept to Treat Side Branches in Bifurcation Lesions—A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study (Thueringer Bifurcation Study, THUEBIS Study as Pilot Trial) , 2009, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[3]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Double Versus Single Stenting for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Meta-Analysis , 2009, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[4]  Javier Suárez de Lezo,et al.  Intervencionismo coronario percutáneo en lesiones en bifurcación. ¿Puede su clasificación ayudar a seleccionar la estrategia terapéutica? , 2009 .

[5]  A. Medina,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention in bifurcation lesions. Does classification aid treatment selection? , 2009, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[6]  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.

[7]  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.

[8]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Bifurcation disease: what do we know, what should we do? , 2008, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[9]  Young-Seok Cho,et al.  Physiological evaluation of the provisional side-branch intervention strategy for bifurcation lesions using fractional flow reserve. , 2008, European heart journal.

[10]  P. Serruys,et al.  Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials: A Case for Standardized Definitions , 2007, Circulation.

[11]  H. Bøtker,et al.  Comparison of sirolimus-eluting and bare metal stents in coronary bifurcation lesions: subgroup analysis of the Stenting Coronary Arteries in Non-Stress/Benestent Disease Trial (SCANDSTENT). , 2006, American heart journal.

[12]  J. Tanigawa,et al.  Complex coronary interventions: unprotected left main and bifurcation lesions. , 2006, Journal of interventional cardiology.

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

[14]  Douglas Scott,et al.  Drug‐eluting stents for coronary bifurcations: Bench testing of provisional side‐branch strategies , 2006, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[15]  I. Iakovou,et al.  Cardiac Pacemaker ( If ) Current : Physiological and Pharmacological Properties , 2006 .

[16]  I. Iakovou,et al.  Clinical and angiographic outcome after implantation of drug-eluting stents in bifurcation lesions with the crush stent technique: importance of final kissing balloon post-dilation. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

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