Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Long‐Term Clinical Outcomes of the One‐Stent Technique versus the Two‐Stent Technique for Non‐Left Main True Coronary Bifurcation Disease in the Era of Drug‐Eluting Stents

Long‐Term Clinical Outcomes of the One‐Stent Technique versus the Two‐Stent Technique for... Background Few studies have compared the long‐term major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) between the one‐stent technique (stenting only the main branch) and the two‐stent technique (stenting of both the main and side branches) for the treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions in the drug‐eluting stent era. Therefore, we investigated this issue using the large nationwide coronary bifurcation registry. Methods The 1,147 patients with non‐left main coronary true bifurcation lesions underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in the Korea Coronary Bifurcation Stent (COBIS) registry. All patients were stratified based on the stent placement technique: one stent (n = 898) versus two stents (n = 249). MACE, including death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat vessel and lesion revascularization (TVR and TLR), were evaluated. Results The median follow‐up duration was 20 months. The MACEs did not differ between the 2 groups. Findings from the one‐stent group were similar to those of the two‐stent group in composite of death, MI, or TVR, based on analysis by crude, multivariate Cox hazard regression model, inverse‐probability‐of‐treatment weighting (hazard ratio (HR) 0.911, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.614–1.351; HR 0.685 95% CI 0.381–1.232; HR 1.235, 95% CI 0.331–4.605, respectively). In further analysis with propensity score matching, the overall findings were consistent. Conclusions The findings of the present study indicate that the one‐stent technique was not inferior to the two‐stent technique for the treatment of non‐left main true coronary bifurcation lesions in terms of long‐term MACEs. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:245–253) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Interventional Cardiology Wiley

Long‐Term Clinical Outcomes of the One‐Stent Technique versus the Two‐Stent Technique for Non‐Left Main True Coronary Bifurcation Disease in the Era of Drug‐Eluting Stents

Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/long-term-clinical-outcomes-of-the-one-stent-technique-versus-the-two-RS8SrmDbTa

References (21)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
0896-4327
eISSN
1540-8183
DOI
10.1111/joic.12025
pmid
23480867
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background Few studies have compared the long‐term major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) between the one‐stent technique (stenting only the main branch) and the two‐stent technique (stenting of both the main and side branches) for the treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions in the drug‐eluting stent era. Therefore, we investigated this issue using the large nationwide coronary bifurcation registry. Methods The 1,147 patients with non‐left main coronary true bifurcation lesions underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in the Korea Coronary Bifurcation Stent (COBIS) registry. All patients were stratified based on the stent placement technique: one stent (n = 898) versus two stents (n = 249). MACE, including death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat vessel and lesion revascularization (TVR and TLR), were evaluated. Results The median follow‐up duration was 20 months. The MACEs did not differ between the 2 groups. Findings from the one‐stent group were similar to those of the two‐stent group in composite of death, MI, or TVR, based on analysis by crude, multivariate Cox hazard regression model, inverse‐probability‐of‐treatment weighting (hazard ratio (HR) 0.911, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.614–1.351; HR 0.685 95% CI 0.381–1.232; HR 1.235, 95% CI 0.331–4.605, respectively). In further analysis with propensity score matching, the overall findings were consistent. Conclusions The findings of the present study indicate that the one‐stent technique was not inferior to the two‐stent technique for the treatment of non‐left main true coronary bifurcation lesions in terms of long‐term MACEs. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:245–253)

Journal

Journal of Interventional Cardiology – Wiley

Published: Jun 1, 2013

There are no references for this article.