RESUMO
Background: Dual stenting technique (DST) is still mandatory for some true bifurcation lesions (BLs), but drug-coated balloon (DCB) alone may offer a new optional treatment with the potential benefits of fewer implants. However, procedural safety presents a concern when using DCB-only to treat true BLs. This study sought to explore the safety and efficacy of the DCB-only strategy for the treatment of true BLs. Methods: Sixty patients with TBLs were randomly assigned to be treated by a DCB-based strategy or DST-based strategy. All patients received angiographic follow-up scheduled after one-year and staged clinical follow-up. The primary endpoint was the one-year late lumen loss (LLL) and cumulative major cardiac adverse events (MACEs) composed of cardiac death (CD), target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), target lesion thrombosis (TVT), or target vessel/lesion revascularization (TLR/TVR). The secondary endpoint was the one-year minimal lumen diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis percentage (DSP) or binary restenosis (BRS), and each MACE component. Results: The baseline clinical and lesioncharacteristics were comparable with similar proportions (20.0% vs. 23.3%, p = 1.000) of the complex BLs between the two groups. At the one-year follow-up, LLL was significantly lower in the DCB-based group (main-vessel: 0.05 ± 0.24 mm vs. 0.25 ± 0.35 mm, p = 0.013; side-branch: -0.02 ± 0.19 mm vs. 0.11 ± 0.15 mm, p = 0.005). MLD, DSP and TLR/TVR were comparable between the groups. The one-year cumulative MACE, all driven by TLR/TVR (6.7% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.667), was low and similar without CD, TVMI or TVT in both groups. Conclusions: Compared to the DST strategy, the DCB- based strategy may be safe and effective in treatment of the selected true BLs. Clinical Trial Registration: Clinical registration number is ChiCTR1900024914.
RESUMO
Background: A simple stenting strategy with provisional side-branch (SB) stenting or crossover stenting has been recommended as the default approach for most coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs). The proximal optimization technique (POT) and POT-associated techniques (POTAs) were introduced to optimize the ostium of SB. However, these techniques are unable to remove the jailed struts or completely diminish vessel damage. In this study we developed a novel branch ostial optimization technique (BOOT) and assessed its efficacy and safety by a propensity score matching comparison (PSM) with POT-associated techniques (POTA). Methods: From June 2016 to March 2018, a total of 203 consecutive patients with true CBLs were treated with BOOT (50 patients) or POTA stenting (153 patients). We performed PSM to correct for confounders from clinical and lesion characteristics. The primary endpoint was cumulative major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months including cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR) or target vessel/lesion thrombosis (ST). Results: After PSM, there were 43 patients in each group. Follow-up coronary angiography was performed in 77 (89.5%) patients. At 12 months, the angiographic restenosis rate was significantly different between the BOOT group and the POTA group after PSM (proximal main branch: 20.01 ± 11.33% vs. 26.81 ± 14.02%, p = 0.003; distal main branch: 18.07 ± 3.71% vs. 23.44 ± 10.78%, p = 0.006; side branch: 23.53 ± 10.12% vs. 39.01 ± 10.29%, p < 0.001, respectively). The incidence of MACE at 12 months was not different between the BOOT group before PSM (8.0% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.604), but less frequent after PSM (4.7% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.026) when compared with the POTA group, mainly due to TVR/TLR (2.3% vs. 20.9%, p = 0.015). Conclusions: In patients with CBLs, BOOT is feasible for optimization of the SB ostium and may be superior to POTAs in terms of the angiographic measurements and long-term clinical outcomes at 12 months follow-up.