Key result
Dedicated two-stent strategy is associated with similar 1-year MACE compared to provisional stenting.
Why the study?
Data were lacking regarding outcomes of provisional versus dedicated two-stent PCI using later-generation stents in Indian settings.
Does a dedicated two-stent strategy reduce 1-year MACE compared to provisional stenting in patients with bifurcation lesions undergoing elective PCI?
Cohort (n=107)
Does a dedicated two-stent strategy reduce 1-year MACE compared to provisional stenting in patients with bifurcation lesions undergoing elective PCI?
A prospective cohort study in India found no significant difference in 1-year MACE between dedicated two-stent and provisional stenting strategies for bifurcation lesions.
Similar MACE rates should not yet change bifurcation PCI practice; leaves open dedicated two-stent role pending randomized trials.
Objectives: Bifurcation percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) remain a challenging subset with tussle between provisional versus dedicated (i.e. two-stent) stenting. Besides technical issues, many other factors such as cost, operator skill, and availability of surgery affect the practice which is followed in a particular region. Because of paucity of data in Indian settings, as also information with later generation stents; this study was planned. Methodology: Patients with bifurcation lesion undergoing elective PCI during 1-year period were prospectively enrolled. Decision of strategy (provisional or dedicated two-stent) and drug-eluting stent type (second or third generation) were operator's choice. Patients were followed telephonically and/or clinically (on routine visits) for 1-year postprocedure for any major adverse cardiac event. Results: One hundred and seven cases (28 in dedicated and 79 in provisional group) with a mean age of 56.2 ± 10.2 years were enrolled. All cases of dedicated arm were true bifurcation compared to 63.2% in provisional group ( P < 0.001). In dedicated arm, 75% of patients had stenosis ≥5 mm in side branch (SB), in provisional group, 74.7% had <5 mm stenosis in SB ( P < 0.001). T-TAP was most common strategy followed by DK crush and final kissing inflation was done in 96.4% cases of dedicated arm. Nearly 84.1% of patients could be followed up till the end of year. In hospital, events were few in either arm, one patient in the dedicated arm developed acute stent thrombosis and three patients in provisional arm developed in-hospital myocardial infarction. One-year major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was not significantly different (9.5% provisional vs. 7.4% dedicated; P = 0.65). Conclusions: One-year MACE did not differ in either 1 or 2-stent strategy in suitable patients with bifurcation lesions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Bifurcation coronary artery disease (n=107). Dedicated (two-stent) stenting vs. Provisional stenting was evaluated on One-year major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (p=0.65). A dedicated two-stent strategy for bifurcation coronary artery disease resulted in similar 1-year MACE rates compared to provisional stenting (7.4% vs. 9.5%; P=0.65).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: