Browsing by Author "Hovasse, Thomas (25627893900)"

Background: Techniques for provisional and dual-stent left main bifurcation stenting require optimization. Aim: To identify technical variables influencing procedural outcomes and periprocedural myocardial infarction following left main bifurcation intervention. Methods: Procedural and outcome data were analyzed in 438 patients from the per-protocol cohort of the European Bifurcation Club Left Main Trial (EBC MAIN). These patients were randomized to the provisional strategy or a compatible dual-stent extension (T, T-and-protrude, or culotte). Results: Mean age was 71 years and 37.4% presented with an acute coronary syndrome. Transient reduction of side vessel thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow occurred after initial stent placement in 5% of procedures but was not associated with periprocedural myocardial infarction. Failure to rewire a jailed vessel during any strategy was more common when jailed wires were not used (9.5% vs. 2.5%, odds ratio [OR]: 6.4, p = 0.002). In the provisional cohort, the use of the proximal optimization technique was associated with less subsequent side vessel intervention (23.3% vs. 41.9%, OR: 0.4, p = 0.048). Side vessel stenting was predominantly required for dissection, which occurred more often following side vessel preparation (15.3% vs. 4.4%, OR: 3.1, p = 0.040). Exclusive use of noncompliant balloons for kissing balloon inflation was associated with reduced need for side vessel intervention in provisional cases (20.5% vs. 38.5%, OR: 0.4, p = 0.013), and a reduced risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction across all strategies (2.9% vs. 7.7%, OR: 0.2, p = 0.020). Conclusion: When performing provisional or compatible dual-stent left main bifurcation intervention, jailed wire use is associated with successful jailed vessel rewiring. Side vessel preparation in provisional patients is linked to increased side vessel dissection requiring stenting. Use of the proximal optimization technique may reduce the need for additional side vessel intervention, and noncompliant balloon use for kissing balloon inflation is associated with a reduction in both side vessel stenting and periprocedural myocardial infarction. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02497014. © 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Background: The multicentre European Bifurcation Club Trial (EBC TWO) showed no significant differences in 12-month clinical outcomes between patients randomised to a provisional stenting strategy or systematic culotte stenting in non-left main true bifurcations. Aims: This study aimed to investigate the 5-year clinical results of the EBC TWO Trial. Methods: A total of 200 patients undergoing stent implantation for non-left main bifurcation lesions were recruited into EBC TWO. Inclusion criteria required a side branch diameter ≥2.5 mm and side branch lesion length >5 mm. Five-year follow-up was completed for 197 patients. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularisation. Results: The mean side branch stent diameter was 2.7±0.3 mm and mean side branch lesion length was 10.3±7.2 mm. At 5-year follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 18.4% of provisional and 23.7% of systematic culotte patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-1.38). No significant differences were identified individually for all-cause mortality (7.8% vs 7.2%, HR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.40-3.05), myocardial infarction (8.7% vs 13.4%, HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.27-1.50) or target vessel revascularisation (6.8% vs 9.3%, HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.37-3.34). Stent thrombosis rates were also similar (1.9% vs 3.1%, HR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.11-3.75). There was no significant interaction between the extent of side branch disease and the primary outcome (p=0.34). Conclusions: In large non-left main true bifurcation lesions, the use of a systematic culotte strategy showed no benefit over provisional stenting for the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularisation at 5 years. The stepwise provisional approach may be considered preferable for the majority of true coronary bifurcation lesions. © Europa Digital & Publishing 2023. All rights reserved.

Background-For the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, a provisional strategy is superior to systematic 2-stent techniques for the most bifurcation lesions. However, complex anatomies with large side branches (SBs) with significant ostial disease length are considered by expert consensus to warrant a 2-stent technique upfront. This consensus view has not been scientifically assessed. Methods and Results-Symptomatic patients with large caliber true bifurcation lesions (SB diameter ≥2.5 mm) and significant ostial disease length (≥5 mm) were randomized to either a provisional T-stent strategy or a dual stent culotte technique. Two hundred patients aged 64±10 years, 82% male, were randomized in 20 European centers. The clinical presentations were stable coronary disease (69%) and acute coronary syndromes (31%). SB stent diameter (2.67±0.27 mm) and length (20.30±5.89 mm) confirmed the extent of SB disease. Procedural success (provisional 97%, culotte 94%) and kissing balloon inflation (provisional 95%, culotte 98%) were high. Sixteen percent of patients in the provisional group underwent T-stenting. The primary end point (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months) occurred in 7.7% of the provisional T-stent group versus 10.3% of the culotte group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.34; P=0.53). Procedure time, X-ray dose, and cost all favored the simpler procedure. Conclusions-When treating complex coronary bifurcation lesions with large stenosed SBs, there is no difference between a provisional T-stent strategy and a systematic 2-stent culotte strategy in a composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 01560455. © 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.