Simple or complex stenting for bifurcation coronary lesions: A patient-level pooled-analysis of the nordic bifurcation study and the british bifurcation coronary study

Miles W. Behan, Niels R. Holm, Nicholas P. Curzen, Andrejs Erglis, Rodney H. Stables, Adam J. De Belder, Matti Niemelä, Nina Cooter, Derek P. Chew, Terje K. Steigen, Keith G. Oldroyd, Jan S. Jensen, Jens Flensted Lassen, Leif Thuesen, David Hildick-Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

144 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background-Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results-Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P=0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P=0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P=0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P=0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P=0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P=0.57). Conclusions-For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)57-64
Number of pages8
JournalCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished or Issued - Feb 2011

Keywords

  • Bifurcation
  • Coronary
  • Stent

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this