DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20161772

A study on stenting in coronary bifurcation lesions

Parameshwar S., Rashmi ., Dattatreya P. V.

Abstract


Background: Lesions at coronary bifurcations represent a challenging area in interventional cardiology. Treating bifurcation lesions involves weighing the risk of side-branch closure and the need for additional stent, sometimes requiring complex techniques. There are no specific guidelines established in choosing a one-stent versus a two-stent technique for a bifurcation lesion. The decision is highly dependent on its anatomic configuration and operator preference and expertise.

Methods:  Twenty patients of coronary artery bifurcation disease, most of them are double vessel disease with bifurcation coronary lesions planned for bifurcation stenting are included in the study. All the twenty patients’ risk factors, angiographic profile, and the technique used for bifurcation stenting are noted. Different stenting techniques are used for bifurcation stenting. Patients clinical follow up at three months, six months and at nine months done. Depending on the clinical symptoms patients are subjected for coronary angiogram. 

Results: Patients with complex stenting techniques (T stenting, SKS, & Crush) when compared to simple (provisional stenting) showed increased MACE during nine month follow up.

Conclusions: The general consensus is that for bifurcation lesions without high risk features, the default approach of one stent PCI with provisional angioplasty plus stent is appropriate. For bifurcation lesions with high risk features, two stent techniques may be safer due to protection and treatment of the SB vessel. When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated with a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of major adverse cardiovascular events on follow up at 9 months.                                                       


Keywords


Coronary bifurcation, One-stent versus two-stent technique, Coronary angiogram

Full Text:

PDF

References


Jorgensen E, Helqvist S. Stent treatment of coronary artery bifurcation lesions. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:383-5.

Louvard Y, Thomas M, Dzavik V, Hildick-Smith D, Galassi AR, Pan M, et al: Classification of coronary artery bifurcation lesions and treatments: time for a consensus, Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;71:175-83.

Meier B, Gruentzig AR, King SB III, Douglas JS Jr, Hollman J, Ischinger T, et al. Risk of side branch occlusion during coronary angioplasty.Am J Cardiol. 1984;53:10-4.

Pinkerton CA, Slack JD, van Tassel JW, Orr CM. Angioplasty for dilatation of complex coronary artery bifurcation stenoses. Am J Cardiol. 1985;55:1626-8.

Al Suwaidi J, Yeh W, Cohen HA, Detre KM, Williams DO, Holmes DR Jr. Immediate and one-year outcome in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions in the modern era (NHLBI dynamic registry). Am J Cardiol. 2001;87:1139-44.

Yamashita T, Nishida T, Adamian MG, Briguori C, Vaghetti M, Corvaja N, et al. Bifurcation lesions: two stents versus one stent: immediate and follow-up results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:1145–51.

By Morton J. Kern, MD, Interventional Cardiac Catheterization Handbook, Bifurcation stenosis PCI. 2013;3:184-93.

Medina A, Suarez de Lezo J, Pan M. A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesion. Revista Espanala de Cardiologia. 2006;59:183.

Kwan TW. Tips and Tricks for Stenting of Bifurcation Coronary Lesions, The journal of invasive cardiology. 2010;22 (9):440-4.

Jørgensen E, Stent SH. treatment of coronary artery bifurcation lesions; Eur Heart J. 2007. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/ eurheartj/ ehl252

Latib A, Colombo A. Bifurcation disease: What do we know, what should we do? JACC Intervent 2008;1;218-26.

Kohler M, Craig S, Nicoll D, Leeson P, Davies RJ, Stradling JR. Endothelial function and arterial stiffness in minimally symptomatic patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;178(9):984-8.

Ferenc M, Gick M, Kienzle RP, Bestehorn HP, Werner KD, Comberg T, et al. Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(23):2859-67.

Colombo A, Bramucci E, Saccà S, Violini R, Lettieri C, Zanini R, et al. Randomized study of the crush technique versus provisional side-branch stenting in true coronary bifurcations: The CACTUS (Coronary bifurcations: Application of the Crushing Technique Using Sirolimus-eluting stents) study. Circulation. 2009;119:71-8.

Ferenc M, Gick M, Kienzle RP, Bestehorn HP, Werner KD, Comberg Tet al. Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(23):2859-67.

Colombo A, Bramucci E, Saccà S, Violini R, Lettieri C, Zanini R, et al. Randomized study of the crush technique versus provisional side-branch stenting in true coronary bifurcations: The CACTUS (Coronary bifurcations: Application of the Crushing Technique Using Sirolimus-eluting stents) study. Circulation 2009;119:71-8.

Pan M, de Lezo JS, Medina A, Romero M, Segura J, Pavlovic D, et al. Rapamycin-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcated coronary lesions: a randomized comparison of a simple versus complex strategy. Am Heart J. 2004;148:857-64.

Hildick-Smith D. Randomized Trial of Simple Versus Complex Drug-Eluting Stenting for Bifurcation Lesions; The British Bifurcation Coronary Study: Old, New, and Evolving Strategies;Circulation. 2010;121:1235-43.

Steigen TK, Maeng M, Wiseth R, Erglis A, Kumsars I, Narbute I et al. for the Nordic PCI Study Group. Randomized study on simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: The Nordic bifurcation Study. Circulation 2006;114:1955-61.

Briguori C, Vaghetti M, Corvaja N, Albiero R. Nordic Stent Technique Study; Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2009;2:27-34.