Key result
Nontreatment of compromised small side branches during bifurcation PCI did not increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to side branch treatment (9.8% vs 10.8%, P=1.00).
Why the study?
Does side branch treatment reduce MACE in patients with small side branch compromise related to main vessel stenting?
Cohort (n=119)
No
Does side branch treatment reduce MACE in patients with small side branch compromise related to main vessel stenting?
Absolute Event Rate: 10.8% vs 9.8%
p-value: p=1.00
Non-treatment of a compromised small side branch during bifurcation PCI does not increase MACE risk and avoids the longer procedure times and higher complication rates associated with side branch intervention.
May support nontreatment of small side branches in bifurcation PCI; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Treatment strategies for small side branch compromise related to main vessel stenting are not well investigated and not established.This study is to compare the clinical prognosis of different strategies for bifurcations with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of small side branch after it compromised.A total of 119 consecutive bifurcation subjects from January 2013 to March 2015 were enrolled, all bifurcations were characterized by small side branch (1.5 mm ≤side branch diameter ≤2.5 mm). Subjects were assigned into side branch treatment (SBT) group and nonside branch treatment group (NSBT) according to whether advanced treatment of side branch was taken or not after it compromised. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was evaluated, so were the CCS angina and NYHA heart function classification.SBT subjects were associated with longer procedure time (46.7 vs 19.6 min, P < .001) and more complications (18.9% vs 0.0%, P < .001). 12 MACEs were followed including 4 in SBT group and 8 in NSBT group (10.8% vs 9.8%, P = 1.00). There were no significant difference between 2 groups regarding the CCS and NYHA classification, neither were the calculated classification improvement rate, respectively. In subgroup analysis for true and nontrue bifurcations, no statistical difference was found in terms of the MACE rate, the CCS, and NYHA classification improvement rate.Nontreatment of side branch will not increase the risk of MACE and will not worsen the CCS and NYHA classification when small side branch compromises during the bifurcation PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Coronary bifurcation lesions with small side branch compromise (n=119). Side branch treatment (SBT) vs. Nonside branch treatment (NSBT) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (p=1.00). Nontreatment of compromised small side branches during bifurcation PCI did not increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to side branch treatment (9.8% vs 10.8%, P=1.00).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: