Key result
Side-branch PCI is linked to ~68% fewer in-hospital adverse events vs major vessel PCI.
Why the study?
Performance of PCI in side-branch vessels has not been fully investigated despite technical advancements in PCI.
Does percutaneous coronary intervention in side-branch vessels compared to major vessels affect in-hospital adverse events in patients undergoing PCI?
Observational (n=257,492)
Yes
Does percutaneous coronary intervention in side-branch vessels compared to major vessels affect in-hospital adverse events in patients undergoing PCI?
Side-branch PCI is associated with a lower risk of acute in-hospital complications compared to major vessel PCI, though higher institutional SB-PCI frequency is linked to increased PCI for restenotic lesions.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Side-branch PCI may lower acute events versus major vessel PCI; leaves open selection bias and needs randomized confirmation.
Performance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in side-branch vessels (SB-PCI) has not been fully investigated despite the technical advancement of PCI. We investigated 257,492 patients registered in the Japanese nationwide PCI registry from January to December 2018; 199,767 (78%) underwent PCI for major vessel PCI (MV-PCI), 21,555 (8.4%) underwent SB-PCI, and 24,862 (9.6%) underwent PCI for both vessels (SB + MV-PCI). The frequencies of primary composite adverse events, defined as in-hospital mortality and procedural complications (i.e., peri-procedural myocardial infarction, tamponade, new-onset cardiogenic shock, stent thrombosis, emergent surgery, and bleeding), and PCI for restenotic lesions were investigated. Their association with institutional frequency of each PCI was also investigated. Fewer drug-eluting stents (66% vs. 86%) and more drug-coated balloons (23% vs. 9%) were used in SB-PCI than in MV-PCI (p < 0.001). Pre-procedure non-invasive testing was similarly performed in SB-PCI and MV-PCI (57% vs. 61%). The composite endpoint was observed in 0.7%, 1.9%, and 2.2% of the SB-PCI, SB + MV-PCI, and MV-PCI groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Institutional frequency of SB-PCI was inversely associated with the composite-endpoint risk for all PCI procedures (odds ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.04–1.81 in the lowest tertile, with reference to the middle tertile, p = 0.02). Frequency of PCI for restenotic lesions was also inversely associated with the institutional frequency of MV-PCI (p < 0.001). SB-PCI was performed safely with a low frequency of acute complications, and higher SB-PCI frequency presented a lower risk of in-hospital adverse events, albeit with a cost of an increase in PCI for restenotic lesions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murasato et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (n=257,492). Side-branch percutaneous coronary intervention (SB-PCI) vs. Major vessel PCI (MV-PCI) was evaluated on Composite of in-hospital mortality and procedural complications (peri-procedural myocardial infarction, tamponade, new-onset cardiogenic shock, stent thrombosis, emergent surgery, and bleeding) (p=<0.001). Side-branch PCI was associated with a lower rate of in-hospital composite adverse events compared to major vessel PCI.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: