Differential prognostic impact of treatment strategy among patients with left main versus non-left main bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Results from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) Registry II

  • Young Bin Song
  • , Joo Yong Hahn
  • , Jeong Hoon Yang
  • , Seung Hyuk Choi
  • , Jin Ho Choi
  • , Sang Hoon Lee
  • , Myung Ho Jeong
  • , Hyo Soo Kim
  • , Jae Hwan Lee
  • , Cheol Woong Yu
  • , Seung Woon Rha
  • , Yangsoo Jang
  • , Jung Han Yoon
  • , Seung Jea Tahk
  • , Ki Bae Seung
  • , Ju Hyeon Oh
  • , Jong Seon Park
  • , Hyeon Cheol Gwon*
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

72 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The authors sought to investigate whether the impact of treatment strategies on clinical outcomes differed between patients with left main (LM) bifurcation lesions and those with non-LM bifurcation lesions. Background: Few studies have considered anatomic location when comparing 1- and 2-stent strategies for bifurcation lesions. Methods: We compared the prognostic impact of treatment strategies on clinical outcomes in 2,044 patients with non-LM bifurcation lesions and 853 with LM bifurcation lesions. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization. Results: The 2-stent strategy was used more frequently in the LM bifurcation group than in the non-LM bifurcation group (40.3% vs. 20.8%, p < 0.01). During a median follow-up of 36 months, the 2-stent strategy was not associated with a higher incidence of cardiac death (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 2.14; p = 0.44), cardiac death or MI (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.58 to 2.19; p = 0.73), or TLF (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.94; p = 0.06) in the non-LM bifurcation group. In contrast, in patients with LM bifurcation lesions, the 2-stent strategy was associated with a higher incidence of cardiac death (HR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.05 to 5.59; p = 0.04), cardiac death or MI (HR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.08 to 4.04; p = 0.03), as well as TLF (HR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.60 to 3.55; p < 0.01). Significant interactions were present between treatment strategies and bifurcation lesion locations for TLF (p = 0.01). Conclusions: The 1-stent strategy, if possible, should initially be considered the preferred approach for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, especially LM bifurcation lesions. (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting [COBIS] Registry II; NCT01642992)

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)255-263
Number of pages9
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume7
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014 Mar

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology . The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Keywords

  • angioplasty
  • bifurcation lesions
  • drug-eluting stent(s)
  • left main

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Differential prognostic impact of treatment strategy among patients with left main versus non-left main bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Results from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) Registry II'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this