Four-Year Outcomes of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with a Bioresorbable Scaffold in the Circumflex Ostium.

Objectives: The study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of a double stent scaffold strategy in patients with left main (LM) bifurcation lesions involving the ostium of the left circumflex artery (LCX), utilizing a drug-eluting stent (DES) in the LM extending into the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in the LCX ostium. Background: The high occurrence of in-stent restenosis of the LCX ostium is the major limitation of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for LM lesions with a two-stent strategy. Methods: This was a single-center, prospective, single-arm study of 46 consecutively enrolled patients with a stable coronary artery disease and significant unprotected LM distal bifurcation disease. Patients underwent imaging-guided PCI using DES in the LM-LAD and BVS in the LCX using a T-stent or mini-crush technique. The primary outcome at four years was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Results: At four years, the primary outcome was identified in 9 patients (19.6%). All events were TLRs except one myocardial infarction due to BVS thrombosis. Seven of the eight TLRs were a result of side branch BVS restenosis. Univariate predictors of the 4-year outcome were higher LDL cholesterol and BVS size ≤2.5 mm. On multivariate analysis, LCX lesion preparation with a cutting balloon and post-procedure use of intravascular ultrasound for optimization were found to be independent protective factors of MACE. Conclusions: In selected patients with LM distal bifurcation disease, an imaging-guided double stent scaffold strategy with DES in the LM and BVS in the LCX ostium was technically successful in all patients and was reasonably safe and effective for four years.

Randomised comparison of provisional side branch stenting versus a two-stent strategy for treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch: the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study IV.

Background: It is still uncertain whether coronary bifurcations with lesions involving a large side branch (SB) should be treated by stenting the main vessel and provisional stenting of the SB (simple) or by routine two-stent techniques (complex). We aimed to compare clinical outcome after treatment of lesions in large bifurcations by simple or complex stent implantation. Methods: The study was a randomised, superiority trial. Enrolment required a SB≥2.75 mm, ≥50% diameter stenosis in both vessels, and allowed SB lesion length up to 15 mm. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-procedural myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation at 6 months. Two-year clinical follow-up was included in this primary reporting due to lower than expected event rates. Results: A total of 450 patients were assigned to simple stenting (n=221) or complex stenting (n=229) in 14 Nordic and Baltic centres. Two-year follow-up was available in 218 (98.6%) and 228 (99.5%) patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months was 5.5% vs 2.2% (risk differences 3.2%, 95% CI -0.2 to 6.8, p=0.07) and at 2 years 12.9% vs 8.4% (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13, p=0.12) after simple versus complex treatment. In the subgroup treated by newer generation drug-eluting stents, MACE was 12.0% vs 5.6% (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.17, p=0.10) after simple versus complex treatment. Conclusion: In the treatment of bifurcation lesions involving a large SB with ostial stenosis, routine two-stent techniques did not improve outcome significantly compared with treatment by the simpler main vessel stenting technique after 2 years. Trial registration number: NCT01496638.

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.