Differential Prognosis of True Bifurcation Lesions According to Left Main Versus Non–Left Main Location and Treatment Strategy

  • Ki Hong Choi
  • , Chang Wook Nam
  • , Francesco Bruno
  • , Yun Kyeong Cho
  • , Leonardo De Luca
  • , Jeehoon Kang
  • , Alessio Mattesini
  • , Young Bin Song
  • , Alessandra Truffa
  • , Hyo Soo Kim
  • , Wojciech Wańha
  • , Woo Jung Chun
  • , Sebastiano Gili
  • , Gerard Helft
  • , Seung Hwan Han
  • , Bernardo Cortese
  • , Cheol Hyun Lee
  • , Javier Escaned
  • , Hyuck Jun Yoon
  • , Alaide Chieffo
  • Joo Yong Hahn, Guglielmo Gallone, Seung Hyuk Choi, Gaetano De Ferrari, Bon Kwon Koo, Giorgio Quadri, Seung Ho Hur, Fabrizio D’ascenzo, Hyeon Cheol Gwon, Ovidio de Filippo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although true bifurcation lesions are associated with a high risk of procedural complications, the differential prognostic implications of percutaneous coronary intervention for true bifurcations according to lesion location are unclear. This study aimed to identify whether clinical outcomes of true bifurcation lesions differed between left main coronary artery (LM) and non-LM bifurcations and to determine the optimal treatment strategy for subtypes of bifurcation lesions in the current-generation drug-eluting stent era.METHODS: The ULTRA-BIFURCAT (Combined Insights From the Unified COBIS III, RAIN, and ULTRA Registries) was created by merging 3 bifurcation-dedicated registries from Korea and Italy. For this, 6548 patients treated with bifurcation lesions were stratified by lesion location and subtype. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; composite of allcause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis) at 800 days. RESULTS: In patients with an LM bifurcation, those with a true bifurcation had a significantly higher risk of a MACE than those with a nontrue bifurcation (20.2% versus 13.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.44 [95% CI, 1.11–1.86]; P=0.006). Conversely, there was no significant difference in the risk of a MACE according to true versus nontrue bifurcation in patients with non-LM bifurcation lesions (9.0% versus 8.8%; adjusted HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.82–1.27]; P=0.849). For LM true bifurcations, MACE rates were comparable between 1-stent and 2-stent strategies, whereas for LM nontrue bifurcations, the 2-stent strategy was associated with a significantly higher risk of MACEs than the 1-stent strategy. No significant differences in the risk of MACEs were observed in non-LM bifurcation lesions according to lesion subtype or treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes were worse for LM true bifurcation lesions than non-LM true bifurcation lesions. A provisional 1-stent strategy should be the preferred approach for treating LM nontrue bifurcation lesions.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere037657
JournalJournal of the American Heart Association
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 4 Feb 2025

Keywords

  • Medina classification
  • outcomes
  • percutaneous coronary intervention
  • stent technique
  • true bifurcation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Differential Prognosis of True Bifurcation Lesions According to Left Main Versus Non–Left Main Location and Treatment Strategy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this