ABSTRACT
Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcations is usually associated with a low success rate, a high rate of complications, and a more frequent need for target lesion revascularization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate two different techniques for dealing with bifurcation lesions: 1] stenting of both branches versus 2] stenting of the main branch and balloon dilatation of the side branch. Fifty Patients with significant bifurcation stenosis were divided into 2 groups: [1] Stenting of the main and side branch [n=25] [group I]. [2] Stenting of the main branch and balloon angioplasty of the side branch [n=25] [group II]. Procedural success showed no significant difference between the two groups [84% versus 76%, respectively, p>0.05]. There was non statistically difference between the two groups as regard in hospital MI, death or target lesion revasularizasion [3[12%], 1[4%] and 4[16%] versus 1[4%], 0[0%] and 0[0%] respectively, p>0.05]. Six months follow up showed a non statistically difference between the two groups as regard MI, death, restenosis and target lesion revasularizasion [3[12%],1[4%],5 [20%] and 4[16%] versus 2[8%], 0[0%], 4[16%] and 4 [16%] respectively, p>0.05]. Stenting of the main and side branch has no advantage over stenting of the main branch and balloon angioplasty of side branch