Cargando…
5-Year Outcome of Simple Crossover Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Compared With Side Branch Opening
BACKGROUND: The optimal side branch (SB) treatment strategy after simple crossover stenting in bifurcation lesions is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of a 1-stent strategy with simple crossover alone versus with an additional SB–openin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9627822/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36338374 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacasi.2021.04.002 |
_version_ | 1784823057020354560 |
---|---|
author | Lee, Cheol Hyun Nam, Chang-Wook Cho, Yun-Kyeong Yoon, Hyuck-Jun Kim, Kwon-Bae Gwon, Hyeon-Cheol Kim, Hyo-Soo Chun, Woo Jung Han, Seung Hwan Rha, Seung-Woon Chae, In-Ho Jeong, Jin-Ok Heo, Jung Ho Yoon, Junghan Lim, Do-Sun Park, Jong-Seon Hong, Myeong-Ki Lee, Sung Yun Cha, Kwang Soo Kim, Doo-Il Bae, Jang-Whan Chang, Kiyuk Hwang, Byung-Hee Choi, So-Yeon Jeong, Myung Ho Choi, Ki Hong Song, Young Bin Hong, Soon-Jun Doh, Joon-Hyung Koo, Bon-Kwon Hur, Seung-Ho |
author_facet | Lee, Cheol Hyun Nam, Chang-Wook Cho, Yun-Kyeong Yoon, Hyuck-Jun Kim, Kwon-Bae Gwon, Hyeon-Cheol Kim, Hyo-Soo Chun, Woo Jung Han, Seung Hwan Rha, Seung-Woon Chae, In-Ho Jeong, Jin-Ok Heo, Jung Ho Yoon, Junghan Lim, Do-Sun Park, Jong-Seon Hong, Myeong-Ki Lee, Sung Yun Cha, Kwang Soo Kim, Doo-Il Bae, Jang-Whan Chang, Kiyuk Hwang, Byung-Hee Choi, So-Yeon Jeong, Myung Ho Choi, Ki Hong Song, Young Bin Hong, Soon-Jun Doh, Joon-Hyung Koo, Bon-Kwon Hur, Seung-Ho |
author_sort | Lee, Cheol Hyun |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The optimal side branch (SB) treatment strategy after simple crossover stenting in bifurcation lesions is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of a 1-stent strategy with simple crossover alone versus with an additional SB–opening procedure in patients with left main (LM) and non-LM coronary bifurcation lesions. METHODS: Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with a 1-stent strategy for bifurcation lesions including LM were selected from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) III registry and divided into the simple crossover–alone group and SB-opening group. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the 5-year rate of target lesion failure (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion repeat revascularization). RESULTS: Among 2,194 patients who underwent the 1-stent strategy, 1,685 (76.8%) patients were treated with simple crossover alone, and 509 (23.2%) patients were treated with an additional SB-opening procedure. Although the baseline SB angiographic disease was more severe in the SB-opening group, the final lumen diameter of the SB was larger. The 5-year observed target lesion failure rate was similar between the 2 groups (7.0% in the simple crossover vs. 6.7% in SB-opening group; hazard ratio: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.48; p = 0.947), even in the subgroup analyses including LM (9.5% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.442) and true bifurcation (5.3% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.362). The results were not changed after an inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. There was no difference in the overall and SB-related target lesion revascularization rate in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term clinical outcome of the 1-stent strategy with simple crossover alone for coronary bifurcation lesions was acceptable compared to those of additional SB-opening procedures. (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting [COBIS] Registry III [COBIS III]; NCT03068494) |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9627822 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96278222022-11-04 5-Year Outcome of Simple Crossover Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Compared With Side Branch Opening Lee, Cheol Hyun Nam, Chang-Wook Cho, Yun-Kyeong Yoon, Hyuck-Jun Kim, Kwon-Bae Gwon, Hyeon-Cheol Kim, Hyo-Soo Chun, Woo Jung Han, Seung Hwan Rha, Seung-Woon Chae, In-Ho Jeong, Jin-Ok Heo, Jung Ho Yoon, Junghan Lim, Do-Sun Park, Jong-Seon Hong, Myeong-Ki Lee, Sung Yun Cha, Kwang Soo Kim, Doo-Il Bae, Jang-Whan Chang, Kiyuk Hwang, Byung-Hee Choi, So-Yeon Jeong, Myung Ho Choi, Ki Hong Song, Young Bin Hong, Soon-Jun Doh, Joon-Hyung Koo, Bon-Kwon Hur, Seung-Ho JACC Asia Original Research BACKGROUND: The optimal side branch (SB) treatment strategy after simple crossover stenting in bifurcation lesions is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of a 1-stent strategy with simple crossover alone versus with an additional SB–opening procedure in patients with left main (LM) and non-LM coronary bifurcation lesions. METHODS: Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with a 1-stent strategy for bifurcation lesions including LM were selected from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) III registry and divided into the simple crossover–alone group and SB-opening group. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the 5-year rate of target lesion failure (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion repeat revascularization). RESULTS: Among 2,194 patients who underwent the 1-stent strategy, 1,685 (76.8%) patients were treated with simple crossover alone, and 509 (23.2%) patients were treated with an additional SB-opening procedure. Although the baseline SB angiographic disease was more severe in the SB-opening group, the final lumen diameter of the SB was larger. The 5-year observed target lesion failure rate was similar between the 2 groups (7.0% in the simple crossover vs. 6.7% in SB-opening group; hazard ratio: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.48; p = 0.947), even in the subgroup analyses including LM (9.5% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.442) and true bifurcation (5.3% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.362). The results were not changed after an inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. There was no difference in the overall and SB-related target lesion revascularization rate in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term clinical outcome of the 1-stent strategy with simple crossover alone for coronary bifurcation lesions was acceptable compared to those of additional SB-opening procedures. (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting [COBIS] Registry III [COBIS III]; NCT03068494) Elsevier 2021-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9627822/ /pubmed/36338374 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacasi.2021.04.002 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Lee, Cheol Hyun Nam, Chang-Wook Cho, Yun-Kyeong Yoon, Hyuck-Jun Kim, Kwon-Bae Gwon, Hyeon-Cheol Kim, Hyo-Soo Chun, Woo Jung Han, Seung Hwan Rha, Seung-Woon Chae, In-Ho Jeong, Jin-Ok Heo, Jung Ho Yoon, Junghan Lim, Do-Sun Park, Jong-Seon Hong, Myeong-Ki Lee, Sung Yun Cha, Kwang Soo Kim, Doo-Il Bae, Jang-Whan Chang, Kiyuk Hwang, Byung-Hee Choi, So-Yeon Jeong, Myung Ho Choi, Ki Hong Song, Young Bin Hong, Soon-Jun Doh, Joon-Hyung Koo, Bon-Kwon Hur, Seung-Ho 5-Year Outcome of Simple Crossover Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Compared With Side Branch Opening |
title | 5-Year Outcome of Simple Crossover Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Compared With Side Branch Opening |
title_full | 5-Year Outcome of Simple Crossover Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Compared With Side Branch Opening |
title_fullStr | 5-Year Outcome of Simple Crossover Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Compared With Side Branch Opening |
title_full_unstemmed | 5-Year Outcome of Simple Crossover Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Compared With Side Branch Opening |
title_short | 5-Year Outcome of Simple Crossover Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Compared With Side Branch Opening |
title_sort | 5-year outcome of simple crossover stenting in coronary bifurcation lesions compared with side branch opening |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9627822/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36338374 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacasi.2021.04.002 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leecheolhyun 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT namchangwook 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT choyunkyeong 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT yoonhyuckjun 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT kimkwonbae 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT gwonhyeoncheol 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT kimhyosoo 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT chunwoojung 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT hanseunghwan 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT rhaseungwoon 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT chaeinho 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT jeongjinok 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT heojungho 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT yoonjunghan 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT limdosun 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT parkjongseon 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT hongmyeongki 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT leesungyun 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT chakwangsoo 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT kimdooil 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT baejangwhan 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT changkiyuk 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT hwangbyunghee 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT choisoyeon 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT jeongmyungho 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT choikihong 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT songyoungbin 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT hongsoonjun 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT dohjoonhyung 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT koobonkwon 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening AT hurseungho 5yearoutcomeofsimplecrossoverstentingincoronarybifurcationlesionscomparedwithsidebranchopening |