Abstract 16641: One-Stent Technique is Not Inferior to Two-Stents Technique for the Treatment of Coronary True Bifurcation Lesions in the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents for a Long-Term Period
Background: No consensus has been made on the superiority of one-stent technique for the treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions as compared with two-stents technique, especially in the era of drug-eluting stents (DES). Thus we evaluated the long-term efficacy of two different techniques of stent placement in coronary true bifurcation lesions.
Methods and Results: 1154 patients with non-left main coronary true bifurcation lesions underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the Korea Coronary Bifurcation Stent (COBIS) registry. All patients were stratified based on the techniques of stent placement: one-stent (n=904) versus two-stents (n=250). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization were evaluated. There were no differences in clinical characteristics between two groups. However, angiographically, the diameters of main branch (MB) and side branch (SB) of one-stent group were smaller than two-stents group (MB 2.75 mm vs. 2.86 mm, p=0.007, SB 2.03 mm vs. 2.18 mm, p<0.001). During the long-term follow-up (median 634 days, interquartile range 418 to 936), both groups had similar occurrences of MACE. The adjusted hazard ratio using multivariate cox regression analysis showed no difference between two groups (Table). Furthermore, in patients with SB diameter ≥ 2.5 mm or SB diameter stenosis ≥ 50%, there was no difference in the incidence of short-term and long-term MACE between two groups
Conclusions: One-stent technique is as effective and safe as two-stents technique for PCI of true coronary bifurcation lesions irrespective of SB diameter and diameter stenosis in the long-term.
- © 2010 by American Heart Association, Inc.