Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: To Stent One Branch or Both?

True bifurcation lesions, representing up to 16% of coronary targets for intervention, have been associated with higher peri-procedural complication rates and lower long-term patency rates.1–6 In the contemporary interventional era, several approaches have been proposed to treat bifurcation lesions.7,8 Coronary stents improve the immediate angiographic results by reducing lesion recoil and achieving better scaffolding, but stents are associated with increased thrombotic complications and later restenosis in bifurcation lesions.8–11 With different stenting approaches, there are 2 principal techniques frequently used: 1) stenting the main branch with balloon angioplasty of the sidebranch; or 2) stenting of both bifurcation branches. Conflicting results have been reported for these two technical approaches.8–13 Thus, we sought to analyze our own experiences among 50 consecutive patients with “true bifurcation” lesions treated using either stenting of the main branch and balloon angioplasty of the sidebranch versus stenting of both branches. Methods Study population. Between March 2001 and November 2002, a total of 50 patients underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization at our center for management of symptomatic true bifurcation lesions (type 1 or 2 according to Lefévre’s classification).12 Only lesions in which there was a > 50% diameter stenosis in both the parent vessel and the ostium of the contiguous sidebranch with reference diameter > 2.0 mm were considered for treatment and/or analysis. Quantitative analysis of the coronary segments was performed by an independent reader blinded to the early and late results, using a validated angiographic archiving method (Medcon™ Telemedicine Technologies, Tel-Aviv, Israel), with the dye-filled catheter as a reference. The diameter of the normal segment proximal to the traced area in the parent vessel was used to determine the parent reference diameter. The sidebranch reference diameter was determined from the diameter of the traced area in the normal segment distal to the lesion in the branch. The minimal luminal diameter (MLD), reference diameter and percent stenosis were calculated as the mean values from two projections. Lesion length was defined as the distance from the proximal to the distal shoulder of the lesion. Coronary intervention. After placement of the guiding catheter (6 or 7 French), two wires were inserted in the distal bed of the two branches. Balloon angioplasty was conducted by sequential inflation of a semi-compliant balloon in each branch or by a simultaneous inflation of both branches. Stenting was performed using two methods. The first technique was stenting the main vessel and balloon inflation of the sidebranch. As a general rule, if the sidebranch diameter was > 2.5mm, a stent was also deployed in the sidebranch. Otherwise, stenting the sidebranch was subsequently conducted only in cases of imminent sidebranch closure or residual stenosis of the sidebranch > 50%. Eight patients (16%) were treated using two stents according to the initial interventional plan (sidebranch vessel diameter > 2.5 mm). In the remaining 42 patients, a single stent was initially planned, but 24 of these cases (57%) crossed over into the double stent group due to unsatisfactory angiographic results. Simultaneous kissing balloon inflation was frequently performed on completion of the procedure. All patients received aspirin as well as heparin bolus infusion to achieve an activated clotting time between 250–300 seconds (> 300 seconds if not treated using glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists). Patients received either oral clopidogrel (loading dose 300 mg and 75 mg once daily for 1 month). Antiplatelet medications (e.g., glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors) were given at the discretion of the operator. All patients were followed closely at our outpatient clinic and all clinical events were adjudicated and recorded using source documentation (hospitalization chart and coronary angiography) by our research team. Study endpoints and definitions. Procedural success was defined as an angiographic residual stenosis 3 times the upper limit of normal. Post-procedural cardiac enzymes were obtained for suspected myocardial ischemia, manifested by recurrent post-procedure chest pain, hemodynamic instability or new electrocardiographic changes of ischemia. Statistical analysis. Chi-square tests or Fischer exact tests were used for analysis of categorical variables when appropriate, and the student’s t-test was used for analysis of continuous variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine significance of variables related to in-hospital and long-term MACE (included in the model factors with p-value Patient characteristics. Of the 50 patients in our cohort, thirty-two (64%) were treated using two stents, and 18 patients (36%) were treated using stenting of the main branch and balloon angioplasty of the sidebranch. The treatment groups were generally similar with respect to age, gender, risk factors and lesion location (Table 1). Pre-procedure angiographic characteristics were also similar between the two groups except for higher values of percent diameter stenosis in the sidebranch vessel in the group treated using two stents (Table 2). Procedural characteristics are shown in Table 2. Kissing balloon was used more often in the double stenting group (72% versus 39%; p = 0.02). The maximum inflation pressures were significantly lower in the single stent group for the sidebranch vessel (9.4 ± 3.3 versus 11.7 ± 2.8 atm; p = 0.03). As expected, the number of stents used per patient was significantly higher in the double stent group. The fluoroscopy time was significantly higher in the double stent group (28 ± 17 minutes versus 18±7 minutes; p = 0.01) and the amount of contrast material used also tended to be higher in this group. The use of antiplatelet medication was similar between groups. Angiographic procedural success was 87.5% in the single stent group and 100% in the double stent group (p = 0.10; Table 3). This difference was due to failure to achieve Study limitations. First, a relatively small number of patients was included in our analysis. Nevertheless, in this small prospective study, the differences were significant, favoring the simple technique of using a single stent whenever feasible. Second, post-procedure cardiac enzymes were checked only in patients with suspected coronary events. Our study is further limited by the lack of routine angiographic follow-up. Finally, our study is unable to address questions as to the potential benefits of the new drug-eluting coronary stents for bifurcation stenosis. From a practical standpoint, because of the limitations of current technology, operators need to simplify the approach and predominantly focus on the parent vessel, with a secondary emphasis put upon the sidebranch. Our results suggest that optimal treatment for bifurcation lesions with stents should include stenting the main branch first, and dilation of the sidebranch with balloon angioplasty through the struts, preferably using a “kissing” balloon technique. If the angiographic result in the sidebranch is satisfactory, stenting the sidebranch should probably be avoided. Stenting the sidebranch is indicated to improve immediate coronary flow (if compromised by coronary dissection of suboptimal angiographic results) and not as a means to improve the long-term clinical results.

1. Myler RK, Shaw RE, Stertzer SH, et al. Lesion morphology and coronary angioplasty: Current experience and analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992;19:1641–1652. 2. Renkin J, Wijns W, Hanet C, et al. Angioplasty of coronary bifurcation stenosis. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1991;22:167–173. 3. Finci L, Meier B, Divernois J. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty of a bifurcation narrowing using the kissing wire monorail balloon technique. Am J Cardiol 1987;60:375–376. 4. Castriz JL, Canales ML, Reynolds DW. Kissing balloon technique in complex PTCA. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1993;28:358–369. 5. Vallbracht C, Kober G, Kaltenbach M. Double long-wire technique for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for narrowings at major bifurcations. Am J Cardiol 1987;60:907–909. 6. Iniguez A, Macaya C, Alfonso F. Early angiographic changes of sidebranches arising from a Palmaz-Schatz stented coronary segment: Results and clinical implications. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;23:911–915. 7. Mathias DW, Niooney JF, Lange HW. Frequency of success and complications of coronary angioplasty of a stenosis at the ostium of a branch vessel. Am J Cardiol 1991;67:491–498. 8. Reimers B, Colombo A. The bifurcation lesion: The role of stents. In: Ellis SG, Holmes DR Jr. (eds). Strategic Approaches in Coronary Intervention, Second Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Philadelphia, 2000: pp. 211–228. 9. Whitlow PL. Ostial and bifurcation lesions. In: Topol EJ (ed). Textbook of Interventional Cardiology, 4th Edition. W.B. Saunders. Philadelphia, 2003: pp. 345–366. 10. Al Suwaidi J, Berger P, Rihal C, et al. Immediate and long-term outcome of intracoronary stent implantation for true bifurcation lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:929–936. 11. Reimers B, Colombo A, Tobis J. Bifurcation lesions. In: Colombo A, Tobis J (eds). Techniques in Coronary Artery Stenting, First Edition. Martin Dunitz Ltd., 2000: pp. 171–204. 12. Lefévre T, Louvard Y, Morice MC, et al. Stenting of bifurcation lesions: Classifications, treatment and results. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2000;49:274–283. 13. Yamashita T, Nishida T, Adamian MG, et al. Bifurcation lesions: Two stents versus one stent — Immediate and follow-up results. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:1145–1145. 14. Lefévre T, Gunasekaran S, Louvard Y, Morice MC. Approach to coronary bifurcation stenting in 2003. EURO-PCR 2003, pp. 127–154. 15. Chevalier B., Glatt B., Royer T, Guyon P. Placement of coronary stents in bifurcation lesions by the “culotte” technique. Am J Cardiol 1998;82:943–949. 16. Colombo A, Louvard Y, Raghu C, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents in bifurcation lesions: Six-month angiographic results according to the implantation technique (Abstr). J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41(Suppl A):53A.