Clinical outcome after percutaneous treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions using first or second generation of drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that various types of drug-eluting stents (DES) may differ regarding the long-term safety and efficacy, particularly in complex lesion subsets. AIMS: In a cohort of consecutive patients undergoing bifurcation stenting, we sought to compare the 1-year efficacy and safety of the first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), the first-generation sirolimus-eluting (SES) and the second-generation everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stents (EES/ZES). METHODS: We treated 2197 patients (mean age 67.5 years, 75.4 % male) with provisional T-stenting for de novo coronary bifurcation lesions using PES, SES or EES/ZES. Primary endpoint (MACE) was the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR). RESULTS: Side branch stenting was found to be clinically indicated in 793 patients (36.1 %). The cumulative 1-year incidence of MACE was 18.8 % after PES, 13.1 % after PCI with SES and 12.2 % after EES/ZES (p = 0.003), the combined endpoint death and MI occurred in 6.6, 5.6 and 8.3 % (p = 0.253) and death in 4.3, 5.2 and 5.3 % (p = 0.581), respectively. After adjustment for co-variables the type of DES was a significant (p = 0.008) predictor of MACE [HR (95 % confidence interval) PES vs SES 1.34 (1.04-1.71), PES vs. EES/ZES 1.75 (1.19-2.57), EES/ZES vs. SES 0.762 (0.531-1.095)], but not of death (p = 0.581), death and MI (p = 0.077) or stent thrombosis (ST) (p = 0.925). CONCLUSIONS: In de novo coronary bifurcation lesions treated with provisional T-stenting, SES and EES/ZES achieved better outcomes than PES by reducing the need for reintervention.

Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions.

AIMS: We investigated whether routine T-stenting reduces restenosis of the side branch as compared with provisional T-stenting in patients with de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our randomized study assigned 101 patients with a coronary bifurcation lesion to routine T-stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in both branches and 101 patients to provisional T-stenting with SES placement in the main branch followed by kissing-balloon angioplasty and provisional SES placement in the side branch only for inadequate results. Primary endpoint was per cent diameter stenosis of the side branch at 9 month angiographic follow-up. Angiographic follow-up in 192 (95%) patients revealed a per cent stenosis of the side branch of 23.0 +/- 20.2% after provisional T-stenting (19% with side-branch stent) and of 27.7 +/- 24.8% (P = 0.15) after routine T-stenting (98.2% with side-branch stent). The corresponding binary restenosis rates were 9.4 and 12.5% (P = 0.32), prompting re-intervention in 5.0 and 7.9% (P = 0.39), respectively. In the main branch, binary restenosis rates were 7.3% after provisional and 3.1% after routine T-stenting (P = 0.17). The overall 1 year incidence of target lesion re-intervention was 10.9% after provisional and 8.9% after routine T-stenting (P = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Routine T-stenting with SES did not improve the angiographic outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention of coronary bifurcation lesions as compared with stenting of the main branch followed by kissing-balloon angioplasty and provisional side-branch stenting.