Whether culotte or double kissing (DK)-crush stenting is the superior systematic 2-stent technique in non-left main bifurcation lesions is unclear. The BBK-3 (unique identifier NCT04192760) is a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial to test the hypothesis that culotte stenting reduces maximal percent diameter restenosis at 9-month follow-up compared to DK-crush stenting in de-novo non-left main coronary bifurcation lesions using approved, third-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). A total of 400 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a two-stent strategy. The primary study endpoint is the maximal percent diameter in-stent restenosis within the bifurcation at 9 months, assessed by quantitative coronary angiography. Secondary endpoints include target lesion revascularization (TLR), the composite of death and myocardial infarction, emergent cardiac bypass surgery and TLR (MACE) at 12 months. BBK-3 will assist in the identification of the preferable, contemporary 2-stent strategy in the treatment of de-novo non-left main coronary bifurcation lesions.

Coronary bifurcation lesions present complex challenges in interventional cardiology, necessitating effective stenting techniques to achieve optimal results. This literature review comprehensively examines the application of computational and bench testing methods in coronary bifurcation stenting, offering insights into procedural aspects, stent design considerations, and patient-specific characteristics. Structural mechanics finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, and multi-objective optimization are valuable tools for evaluating stenting strategies, including provisional side branch stenting and two-stenting techniques. We highlight the impact of procedural factors, such as balloon positioning and rewiring techniques, and stent design features on the outcome of percutaneous coronary interventions with stents. We discuss the importance of patient-specific characteristics in deployment strategies, such as bifurcation angle and plaque properties. This understanding informs present and future research and clinical practice on bifurcation stenting. Computational simulations are a continuously maturing advance that has significantly enhanced stenting devices and techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions over the years. However, the accurate account of patient-specific vessel and lesion characteristics, both in terms of anatomical and accurate physiological behavior, and their large variation between patients, remains a significant challenge in the field. In this context, advancements in multi-objective optimization offer significant opportunities for refining stent design and procedural practices.

Coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) present significant challenges in interventional cardiology, especially in low and middle-income countries like Vietnam. While the double-kissing (DK) crush technique is gaining attention for its potential benefits, its efficacy and safety compared with provisional stenting (PS) in the Vietnamese population remain underexplored. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the DK crush technique in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared with those of PS, providing essential data to inform clinical decision-making in settings with limited resources.

This prospective cohort study included 58 patients with CBL, 33 patients undergoing the DK crush technique and 25 receiving PS. Clinical follow-up at 1, 3, 9, and 12 months assessed MACE, including cardiovascular disease-related death, acute myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke.

Post-percutaneous coronary intervention side branch diameter stenosis in the DK crush group was 5.64% ± 5.80%, significantly lower than the PS group (48.2% ± 28.5%; P < .001). One-year follow-up data revealed greater MACE reduction in the DK crush group (91% MACE-free vs 72% in the PS group; P = .03; hazard ratio [HR], 3.689; 95% CI, 1.034-13.160). However, the DK crush technique had longer procedural times (91.1 vs 54.6 minutes) and required higher contrast and radiation doses (P < .01).

Although DK crush requires longer procedure times and greater radiation exposure, it results in greater MACE reduction than does PS in patients with CBL. Clinicians should weigh the benefits and limitations of both techniques, particularly in resource-limited settings.

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of double kissing crush stenting (DKC) and mini-culotte technique (MCT) in patients with complex bifurcation lesions.

This retrospective study enrolled 236 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary bifurcation disease between January 2014 and November 2022. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the combination of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoint was major cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE) including all-cause death, MI, TLR, stroke, or stent thrombosis. The regression models were adjusted by applying the inverse probability weighted (IPW) approach to reduce treatment selection bias.

The initial management strategy was DKC in 154 (65.3%) patients and MCT in 82 (34.7%) patients (male: 194 [82.2%], mean age: 60.85 ± 10.86 years). The SYNTAX scores were similar in both groups. The rates of long-term TLF and MACCE rates were 17.4% and 20%, respectively. The rate of TLF (26.8% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.005) was higher in patients treated with MCT than those treated with the DKC technique, mainly driven by more frequent TLR (15.9% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.035). The long-term TLF and MACCE rates were notably lower in the DKC group compared to the others: adjusted hazard ratio (HR; IPW): 0.407, p = 0.009 for TLF, and adjusted HR(IPW): 0.391 [95% CI: 0.209-0.730], p = 0.003 for MACCE.

At long-term follow-up, the rates of TLF and MACCE were 17.4% and 20%, respectively. However, long-term TLF was significantly higher in patients treated with MCT than those treated with the DKC technique, primarily due to a more frequent occurrence of clinically driven TLR.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become the standard procedure for patients with angina and acute coronary syndrome. From the perspective of technology and technique, PCI has advanced over the last four decades, resulting in considerably improved clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease in the current era. In this review article, we summarize recent advances, promising technologies, and areas for research in the field of PCI.

Coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL) comprise 15 %-20 % of percutaneous coronary procedures and remain a challenge despite advances in stent and interventional techniques. The BioMime™ Branch sirolimus-eluting coronary side-branch stent (BBSES) is specifically designed for CBL treatment in conjunction with a standard drug-eluting stent (DES). We report the first single-center experience of treating complex CBL with the novel BBSES.

This is a retrospective, single-center study involving consecutive prospectively identified patients who underwent treatment of true CBL with the BBSES. The protocol included BBSES+DES implantation in the CBL and simultaneous final kissing balloon inflation.

Fifty-eight CBL were treated in 58 consecutive patients (89.6 % men, mean age 69.0 ± 9.5 years) presenting primarily with stable angina (84.4 %) and true (Medina 1,1,1,) CBL. Procedural success was 100 % without major adverse cardiac events (MACE). At a median follow-up of 18 months, one sudden death was reported that was accounted as possible late stent thrombosis. One patient had spontaneous myocardial infarction due to subacute thrombosis of a DES implanted in the main vessel proximally to the BBSES before the index procedure. Another patient was hospitalized for atrial fibrillation.

This is the first clinical experience to date of true CBL treatment with the BBSES demonstrating high procedural success, no in-hospital MACE and sustained clinical results at a median follow-up of 18 months.

Double kissing crush (DKC) and nano-crush (NC) techniques are frequently used, but the comparison for both techniques is still lacking. The goal of this multicenter study was to retrospectively assess the midterm clinical results of DKC and NC stenting in patients with complex bifurcation lesions (CBLs).

A total of 324 consecutive patients [male: 245 (75.6%), mean age: 60.73 ± 10.21 years] who underwent bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention between January 2019 and May 2023 were included. The primary endpoint defined as the major cardiovascular events (MACE) included cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed to reduce treatment selection bias. This is the first report comparing the clinical outcomes of DKC and NC stenting in patients with CBL.

The initial revascularization strategy was DKC in 216 (66.7%) cases and NC in 108 (33.3%) patients. SYNTAX scores [25.5 ± 6.73 vs. 23.32 ± 6.22, p = 0.005] were notably higher in the NC group than the DKC group. The procedure time (76.98 ± 25.1 vs. 57.5 ± 22.99 min, p = 0.001) was notably higher in the DKC group. The incidence of MACE (18.5 vs. 9.7%, p = 0.025), clinically driven TLR (14.8 vs. 6%, p = 0.009), and TVMI (10.2 vs. 4.2%, p = 0.048) were notably higher in the NC group than in the DKC group. The midterm MACE rate in the overall population notably differed between the NC group and the DKC group (adjusted HR (IPW): 2.712, [95% CI: 1.407-5.228], p = 0.003).

In patients with CBLs, applying the DKC technique for bifurcation treatment had better ischemia-driven outcomes than the NC technique.

In complex bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention, 2-stent strategies are often required. Commonly used 2-stent techniques can lead to suboptimal results due to their complexity. We developed the balloon-assisted double-kissing T-stenting (DKT) technique, which uses balloons to optimize stent placement, delivery, and final architecture.

With the balloon-assisted DKT technique, a balloon is inflated into the main branch (MB) to identify the best position of the side-branch (SB) stent instead of relying on angiography. DKT aims at supporting the SB ostium with stent crowns instead of distorted open cell(s), by achieving a longitudinal deformation with minimal crush of the SB stent upon implantation of the MB stent. This hypothesis was tested on a bench model. We report how the technique was performed in 2 cases and provide intracoronary imaging of the results.

As hypothesized, DKT resulted in a longitudinal accordion-like deformation and minimal crush effect on bench. The SB ostium was supported by stent crowns. The SB wall opposed to the carina was well covered with crowns from the MB stent after proximal optimization technique and final kissing. The technique was successfully used in 2 complex left main cases with perfect coverage of the SB ostium as assessed with intracoronary imaging.

The balloon-assisted DKT is a simple technique that combines strengths of double-kissing crush and culotte techniques, results in appropriate SB ostium coverage, and deserves further investigation.

Severely calcified coronary bifurcations complicate percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and often necessitate dedicated lesion preparation. We compared the outcomes of single- versus two-stent techniques for treating heavily calcified true bifurcation lesions following rotational atherectomy (RA).

Among patients receiving RA for severely calcified true bifurcations at a single center, 59 were treated with a single stent, and another 59 received two stents. We analyzed in-hospital adverse outcomes and 1-year rates of the bifurcation-oriented composite endpoint (BOCE), defined as cardiac death, target bifurcation myocardial infarction (TB-MI), or target bifurcation revascularization (TBR).

The single-stent arm was associated with more in-hospital adverse outcomes (adj. OR, 6.13; 95% CI, 1.34-28.0; p = 0.019), driven by higher peri-procedural MI rates (18.6% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.043) and more side branch compromise (13.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.006). After 1 year, both techniques had comparable 1-year BOCE (adj. HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.12-1.23; p = 0.106). We observed a significant interaction between the treatment technique and the presence of LM bifurcation (p interaction = 0.012), favoring single-stent technique in patients with non-LM bifurcations (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.68; p = 0.015). Notably, the single-stent technique had lower rates of TBR (2% vs. 15%, p log-rank = 0.026) after 1 year.

Patients with severely calcified true bifurcation lesions, treated with RA followed by a single stent implantation, had more in-hospital adverse outcomes compared to those treated with two stents. However, the superior outcomes of the two-stent technique did not translate into improved long-term results. In fact, the two-stent technique was even associated with higher rates of revascularization after 1 year.

Despite the development of dedicated, two-stent strategies, including the double kissing (DK) crush technique, the ideal technique for coronary artery bifurcation stenting has not been identified. We aimed to compare and determine the absolute risk difference (ARD) of the DK crush technique alone versus provisional stenting approaches for coronary bifurcation lesions, using the Bayesian technique.

We queried PubMed/MEDLINE to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DK crush technique with provisional stenting for bifurcation lesions, published till January 2023. We used Bayesian methods to calculate the ARD and 95% credible interval (CrI).

We included three RCTs, with 916 patients, in the final analysis. The ARD of cardiac death was centered at -0.01 (95% CrI: -0.04 to 0.02; Tau: 0.02, 85% probability of ARD of DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0). ARD for myocardial infarction was centered at -0.03 (95%CrI: -0.9 to 0.03; Tau: 0.05, 87% probability of ARD of DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0). ARD for stent thrombosis was centered at 0.00 (95% CrI: -0.04 to 0.03, Tau: 0.03, 51% probability of ARD for DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0). Finally, ARD for target lesion revascularization was centered at -0.05 (95% CrI: -0.08 to -0.03, Tau: 0.02, 99.97% probability of ARD for DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0).

Bayesian analysis demonstrated a lower probability of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization, with DK crush compared with provisional stenting techniques, and a minimal probability of difference in stent thrombosis.

Double kissing (DK)-crush and T-stenting and small protrusion (TAP) techniques are gaining popularity, but the comparison for both techniques is still lacking. This study sought to retrospectively evaluate the long-term outcomes of DK-crush and TAP techniques in patients with complex bifurcation lesions.

A total of 255 (male: 205 [80.3%], mean age: 59.56 ± 10.13 years) patients who underwent coronary bifurcation intervention at a single-center between January 2014 and May 2021 were included. Angiographic features, procedure details, and in-hospital or long-term outcomes were assessed. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven-target lesion revascularization (TLR). The regression models were adjusted applying by the inverse probability weighted (IPW) approach to reduce treatment selection bias.

The initial management strategy was DK-crush in 152 (59.6%) patients and TAP in 103 (40.4%) cases. The SYNTAX scores (24.58 ± 7.4 vs. 24.26 ± 6.39, p = 0.846) were similar in both groups. The number of balloon (6.32 ± 1.82 vs. 3.92 ± 1.19, p < 0.001) usage was significantly higher in the DK-crush group than in the TAP group. The rates of TLF (11.8 vs. 22.3%, p = 0.025) and clinically driven TLR (6.6 vs. 15.5%, p = 0.020) were significantly lower in the DK-crush group compared to the TAP group. The long-term TLF was significantly higher in the TAP group compared to the DK-crush group (unadjusted HR: 1.974, [95% CI: 1.044-3.732], p = 0.035 and adjusted HR [IPW]: 2.498 [95% CI: 1.232-5.061], p = 0.011).

The present study showed that the DK-crush technique of bifurcation treatment was associated with lower long-term TLF and TLR rates compared to the TAP technique.

Despite a decade of extensive research and clinical insights, percutaneous coronary intervention strategies for coronary bifurcation lesions have remained a challenging and highly debated area. This article presents a review of the latest findings and advances in defining and classifying coronary bifurcation lesions, in vitro studies, intracoronary imaging, stenting strategies, and the deployment of drug-coated balloons. Based on current evidence, this review provides recommendations for interventional cardiologists to develop individualized interventional strategies and enhance the efficiency of stenting procedures.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of double kissing crush (DKC) and mini-crush (MC) techniques in patients with complex coronary bifurcation lesions is lacking. This study sought to determine the clinical results of DKC and MC stenting techniques in mid-term follow-up. This retrospective study included a total of 269 consecutive patients with complex bifurcation lesions who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention; 132 (49%) of them were treated with MC technique, whereas 137 (51%) treated with DKC technique. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. This is the first study to compare the cardiovascular outcomes of DKC and MC stenting techniques in patients with complex bifurcation lesions. The SYNTAX scores were similar in both groups (23 [20 to 30] vs 23 [19 to 28], p = 0.631)]. The number of balloons (6.31 ± 1.80 vs 4.42 ± 0.87, p <0.001) and guidewires (3.55 ± 0.83 vs 2.86 ± 0.74, p <0.001) used, fluoroscopy time (21.55 ± 7.05 vs 16.66 ± 4.19 minutes, p <0.001), and procedure time (80.42 ± 27.95 vs 69.61 ± 18.97 minutes, p <0.001) were significantly higher in the DKC group. The rate of composite TLF was similar in complex bifurcation patients treated with MC than those treated with the DKC technique (14% vs 12%, p = 0.453). Moreover, both groups had similar rates in terms of cardiac death or all-cause death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. In conclusion, the present study showed that both techniques of bifurcation treatment met high angiographic success with low complication and similar TLF rates.

Controversy still exists regarding the optimal treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions.

We aimed to analyse the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare outcomes following different bifurcation stenting techniques.

We systematically searched for RCTs comparing different techniques published up to July 2022. We then conducted a pairwise meta-analysis to compare outcomes between provisional stenting (PS) versus upfront 2-stent techniques. Moreover, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare all strategies with each other. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

Twenty-four RCTs (6,890 patients) analysed PS, T-stenting, double-kissing (DK)-crush, crush, or culotte stenting. The pairwise meta-analysis did not reveal a significant difference between the PS and 2-stent techniques. However, the prespecified sensitivity analysis, which included RCTs exclusively enrolling patients with true bifurcation lesions, showed a lower rate of MACE following 2-stent techniques, and meta-regression indicated that a longer side branch lesion was associated with a greater benefit from the 2-stent strategy, which was the most apparent in RCTs with a mean lesion length >11 mm. NMA revealed that DK-crush was associated with the lowest MACE rate (odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.62; p<0.01; PS as a reference).

Overall, 2-stent techniques were not significantly better than PS in terms of clinical outcomes. However, the results of the sensitivity analysis suggested that there might be a benefit of a 2-stent approach in selected patients with true bifurcation lesions, especially in the case of long side branch lesions. An NMA revealed that DK-crush was associated with the lowest event rates when compared with other techniques.

Bifurcation lesions account for 20% of all percutaneous coronary interventions and represent a complex subset which are associated with lower procedural success and higher rates of restenosis [...].

Bifurcated anatomical locations in the arterial tree, such as coronary artery bifurcations, are prone to develop obstructive atherosclerotic lesions due to the pro-atherogenic low wall shear stress. The percutaneous treatment of bifurcation lesions is among the most challenging complex coronary interventions, including different multistep stenting strategies. Even though provisional side branch (SB) stenting is recommended as the primary approach in most cases, the debate continues between provisional SB and upfront two-stent strategies, particularly in complex bifurcations consisting of a significantly diseased SB that supplies a crucial myocardial territory. This review will highlight the importance of understanding the bifurcation philosophy and provide an individual algorithmic approach to find the optimal treatment strategy for each patient with a non-left main coronary bifurcation lesion. Considering the most recent scientific evidence, the advantages and disadvantages of each stenting technique and the role of intracoronary imaging to optimize bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes will be discussed.

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the recommended mode of revascularization in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction (iLVSD) and multivessel disease. However, contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes have improved with the integration of novel technologies and refinement of revascularization strategies, and PCI is often used in clinical practice in this population. There is a lack of evidence from randomized trials comparing contemporary state-of-the-art PCI versus CABG for the treatment of iLVSD and multivessel disease. This was the impetus for the STICH3C trial (Canadian CABG or PCI in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy), described here.

The STICH3C trial is a prospective, unblinded, international, multicenter trial with an expected sample size of 754 participants from ≈45 centers. Patients with multivessel/left main coronary artery disease and iLVSD with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% considered by the local Heart Team appropriate for and amenable to revascularization by both modes of revascularization will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to state-of-the-art PCI or CABG.

The primary end point is the composite of death from any cause, stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction, urgent repeat revascularization, or heart failure readmission, summarized as a time-to-event outcome. The key hierarchical end point is time to death and frequency of hospitalizations for heart failure. The key safety outcome is a composite of major adverse events. Disease-specific quality-of-life and health economics measures will be compared between groups. Participants will be followed for a median of 5 years, with a minimum follow-up of 4 years.

STICH3C will directly inform patients, clinicians, and international practice guidelines about the efficacy and safety of CABG versus PCI in patients with iLVSD. The results will provide novel and broad evidence, including clinical events, health status, and economic assessments, to guide care for patients with iLVSD and severe coronary artery disease.

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Unique identifier: NCT05427370.

The multicentre European Bifurcation Club Trial (EBC TWO) showed no significant differences in 12-month clinical outcomes between patients randomised to a provisional stenting strategy or systematic culotte stenting in non-left main true bifurcations.

This study aimed to investigate the 5-year clinical results of the EBC TWO Trial.

A total of 200 patients undergoing stent implantation for non-left main bifurcation lesions were recruited into EBC TWO. Inclusion criteria required a side branch diameter ≥2.5 mm and side branch lesion length >5 mm. Five-year follow-up was completed for 197 patients. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularisation.

The mean side branch stent diameter was 2.7±0.3 mm and mean side branch lesion length was 10.3±7.2 mm. At 5-year follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 18.4% of provisional and 23.7% of systematic culotte patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-1.38). No significant differences were identified individually for all-cause mortality (7.8% vs 7.2%, HR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.40-3.05), myocardial infarction (8.7% vs 13.4%, HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.27-1.50) or target vessel revascularisation (6.8% vs 9.3%, HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.37-3.34). Stent thrombosis rates were also similar (1.9% vs 3.1%, HR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.11-3.75). There was no significant interaction between the extent of side branch disease and the primary outcome (p=0.34).

In large non-left main true bifurcation lesions, the use of a systematic culotte strategy showed no benefit over provisional stenting for the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularisation at 5 years. The stepwise provisional approach may be considered preferable for the majority of true coronary bifurcation lesions.

gov: NCT01560455.

Coronary bifurcation stenting constitutes 20% of all PCI performed. Given the extensive prevalence of bifurcation lesions, various techniques have sought to optimally stent the bifurcation to improve revascularization while also decreasing rates of stent thrombosis and lesion recurrence. Advanced techniques, such as planned two-stent approaches, have been shown to have improved outcomes but also require fluoroscopy and procedure time, posing an economic argument as well as a patient-outcome one.

Because of the many strategies posited in the literature, it becomes essential to objectively evaluate evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses to help determine the optimal stenting strategy.

We reviewed the clinical evidence on the efficacy of coronary bifurcation stenting.

In this paper, we review the most recent randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses on the efficacy of various stenting techniques and advances in stenting technologies published to gauge the current state of understanding and chart where the field is heading.

Bifurcation stenting is a maturing problem in the field of interventional cardiology that is adapting to the needs of the patients and advances in technology.

Coronary bifurcation percutaneous interventions (PCI) comprise a challenging subset of patients with coronary artery disease. Beyond the well-known debate about single versus double stent strategies, which have different outcomes on mid- and long-term follow up, both strategies may be subject, although rarely, to several different technical complications, rarely reported in clinical trials, which need to be defined, classified, and understood by cardiovascular professionals involved in the management of patients with coronary bifurcation disease. The present paper aims to broaden the knowledge of the range of intraprocedural complications and relative treatment during PCI of coronary bifurcations.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is responsible for >50% of heart failures cases. Patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (iLVSD) are known to have poorer outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared to patients with a normal ejection fraction. Nevertheless, <1% of patients in coronary revascularization trials to date had iLVSD. The purpose of this review is to describe coronary revascularization modalities in patients with iLVSD and highlight the need for randomized controlled trial evidence comparing these treatments in this patient population.

Network meta-analytic findings of observational studies suggest that PCI is associated with higher rates of mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization but not stroke compared to CABG in iLVSD. In recent years, outcomes for patients undergoing PCI have improved as a result of advances in technologies and techniques.

The optimal coronary revascularization modality in patients with iLVSD remains unknown. In observational studies, CABG appears superior to PCI; however, direct randomized evidence is absent and developments in PCI techniques have improved post-PCI outcomes in recent years. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure 3.0 consortium of trials will seek to address the clinical equipoise in coronary revascularization in patients with iLVSD.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) is still technically demanding, mainly because of higher rates of both acute and chronic complication as compared with non-CBLs. Although provisional stenting (PS) is considered as the preferred strategy for most of the CBLs, a systematic two-stent technique (double kissing [DK] crush) should be considered in patients with complex left main (LM)-CBLs or non-LM-CBLs stratified by the DEFINITION criteria. Intracoronary imaging and/or physiologic evaluation should be used to optimize CBLs intervention. PCI with DES for the treatment of CBLs is technically demanding, mainly because of higher rates of both acute and chronic complication as compared with non-CBLs. PS is a default strategy for most of the CBLs. Double kissing (DK) crush is associated with better clinical outcomes compared with PS in patients with complex LM-CBLs or non-LM-CBLs stratified by the DEFINITION criteria. Intracoronary imaging and/or physiologic evaluation are useful tools to guide the treatment of CBLs. The use of drug-coated balloons in CBLs needs further data to support the clinical benefits.

Previous studies have not compared outcomes between different percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategies and lesion locations in non-left main (LM) bifurcation lesions. We enrolled 2044 patients from a multicenter registry with an LAD bifurcation lesion (n = 1551) or non-LAD bifurcation lesion (n = 493). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). During a median follow-up period of 38 months, non-LAD bifurcation lesions treated with the two-stent strategy, compared with the one-stent strategy, were associated with more frequent TLF (20.7% vs. 6.3%, p < 0.01), TLR (16.7% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.01), and target vessel revascularization (TVR; 18.2% vs. 6.3%, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in outcome among LAD bifurcation lesions treated with different PCI strategies. The two-stent strategy was associated with a higher risk of TLF (adjusted HR 4.34, CI 1.93−9.76, p < 0.01), TLR (adjusted HR 4.30, CI 1.64−11.27, p < 0.01), and TVR (adjusted HR 5.07, CI 1.69−9.74, p < 0.01) in the non-LAD bifurcation lesions. The planned one-stent strategy is preferable to the two-stent strategy for the treatment of non-LAD bifurcation lesions.

Left main coronary artery lesions are associated with jeopardy of an outsized area of the myocardium, causing a high incidence of morbidity and mortality. Optimal treatment of coronary bifurcation anatomy remains highly debatable, whether by provisional or two-stent technique. This prospective observational study was designed to investigate the one-year clinical outcomes of unprotected left main coronary artery disease revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention in a "real-world" setting among Egyptian patients in a prospective single-center registry (at Ain Shams University Hospitals).

This study included 163 patients who underwent PCI to LM lesions between May 1, 2020, and the end of April in Ain Shams University hospitals. Patients were dichotomized into two groups according to their intended stenting technique, whether provisional or two-stent technique. A total of 142 underwent provisional stenting while 21 were designated for the two-stent technique, mainly DK crush (double kissing). Among the patients with intended provisional stenting, 34 patients underwent the TAP technique. Patients were followed up for the primary endpoints, at the in-hospital setting, at 30 days, and after 1 year. In-hospital death was encountered in 6.34% of cases undergoing provisional stenting, among which 5.36% were due to a cardiovascular cause. Total MACCE was found to be 2.96% in the provisional stenting group versus 4.76% in the two-stent group. Overall, MACCE at 1 year was found to be 22.31% in the provisional group and 30% in the two-stent group (p-value0.57). TVF was recognized in 10% of cases treated by provisional stenting and 30% of cases treated by the two-stent technique (p-value 0.023).

LM coronary artery lesions treatment by PCI is considered a safe and beneficial solution. Provisional stenting is the preferred approach bearing in mind that bail-out procedures may be sought in case the SB needs further treatment. Adjunctive assessment by IVUS or FFR may help achieve better outcomes, and efforts should be performed to facilitate their feasibility.

For bifurcating coronary lesions, a provisional stent technique is recommended compared with a routine 2-stent strategy. However, much of these data are from trials involving first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) or bare-metal stents where the risk of restenosis with the 2-stent technique is higher. We investigated the efficacy of various 2-stent techniques versus a provisional stent technique for bifurcation lesions with newer-generation DES.

PubMed and Embase were searched through May 2022 for randomized control trials investigating bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention techniques using newer-generation DES, and a meta-analysis was conducted. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at the longest reported follow-up time.

Our study identified 13 randomized control trials including 4041 patients. Compared with the provisional technique, 2-stent techniques significantly decreased MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.97; P = .03), target vessel myocardial infarction (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20-0.71; P = .002), and target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.93; P = .02). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.62-1.45; P = .79), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.49-1.38; P = .45), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.73-1.37; P = .99), and stent thrombosis (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.52-1.44; P = .58). Of the 2-stent techniques, the double kissing crush technique significantly decreased MACE and target lesion revascularization than other 2-stent techniques.

In this era of newer-generation DES, a 2-stent approach, especially the double kissing crush technique, is superior to a provisional stenting technique for a bifurcation lesion, with a significant reduction in MACE, target vessel myocardial infarction, and revascularization.

Differences in the impact of the 1- or 2-stent strategy in similar coronary bifurcation lesion conditions are not well understood. This study investigated the clinical outcomes and its predictors between 1 or 2 stents in propensity score-matched (PSM) complex bifurcation lesions.

We analyzed the data of patients with bifurcation lesions, obtained from a multicenter registry of 2,648 patients (median follow up, 53 months). The patients were treated by second generation drug-eluting stents (DESs). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). PSM was performed to balance baseline clinical and angiographic discrepancies between 1 and 2 stents. After PSM (N=333 from each group), the 2-stent group had more TLRs (hazard ratio [HR] 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-6.97, P=0.005) and fewer hard endpoints (composite of cardiac death and TVMI; HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19-1.01, P=0.054), which resulted in a similar TLF rate (HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.83-2.37, P=0.209) compared to the 1-stent group. Compared with 1-stent, the 2-stent technique was more frequently associated with less TLF in the presence of main vessel (pinteraction=0.008) and side branch calcification (pinteraction=0.010).

The 2-stent strategy should be considered to reduce hard clinical endpoints in complex bifurcation lesions, particularly those with calcifications.

Stent placement remains a challenge for coronary bifurcation lesions. While both simple and complex stenting strategies are available, it is unclear which one results in better clinical outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to explore the long-term prognosis following treatment with the 2 stenting strategies.

Randomized controlled trials found from searches of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were included in this meta-analysis. The complex stent placement strategy was identified as the control group, and the simple stent placement strategy was identified as the experimental group. Data were synthesized with a random effects model. The quality of the randomized controlled trials was assessed by Jadad scale scores. The clinical endpoints at 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years were analyzed.

A total of 11 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2494 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The odds ratio [OR] of the major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 6 months was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.35; P = .49, I ² = 0%). The OR of the MACEs at 1 year was 0.61 (95% CI 0.36-1.05; P = .08, I ² = 0%). The OR of the MACEs at 5 years was 0.69 (95% CI 0.51-0.92; P = .01, I ² = 0%). Compared with the complex strategy, the simple strategy was associated with a lower incidence of MACEs at 5 years.

Compared to the complex stenting strategy, the simple stenting strategy can better reduce the occurrence of long-term MACEs for coronary bifurcation lesions.

Bifurcation coronary artery disease is common as the development of atherosclerosis is facilitated by altered endothelial shear stress. Multiple anatomical and physiological factors need to be considered when treating bifurcation lesions. To achieve optimal results, various stenting techniques have been developed, each with benefits and limitations. In this state-of-the-art review we describe technically important characteristics of bifurcation lesions and summarise the evidence supporting contemporary bifurcation techniques.

Background Bifurcation lesions account for 20% of all percutaneous coronary interventions and represent a complex subset which are associated with lower procedural success and higher rates of restenosis. The ideal bifurcation technique, however, remains elusive. Methods and Results Extensive search of the literature was performed to pull data from randomized clinical trials that met predetermined inclusion criteria. Conventional meta-analysis produced pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% CI of 2-stent technique versus provisional stent on prespecified outcomes. Both frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed to compare bifurcation techniques. A total of 8318 patients were included from 29 randomized clinical trials. Conventional meta-analysis showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization between 2-stent techniques and provisional stenting. Frequentist network meta-analysis revealed that double kissing crush was associated with lower cardiac death (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.84), major adverse cardiac events (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.64), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.88), target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization when compared with provisional stenting. Double kissing crush was also superior to other 2-stent techniques, including T-stent or T and protrusion, dedicated bifurcation stent, and culotte. Conclusions Double kissing crush was associated with lower risk of cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization compared with provisional stenting and was superior to other 2-stent techniques. Superiority of 2-stent strategy over provisional stenting was observed in subgroup meta-analysis stratified to side branch lesion length ≥10 mm.

Periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is more frequently observed in true bifurcation lesions such as Medina (1,1,1) and (0,1,1). The aim of this study is to compare the incidence of PMI in elective PCI between Medina (1,1,1) and (0,1,1) bifurcation lesions. This was a retrospective, single-center study. We included 162 true bifurcation lesions, which were divided into the (1,1,1) group (n = 85) and the (0,1,1) group (n = 77). We compared the incidence of PMI between the two groups and performed multivariate logistic regression analysis using PMI as a dependent variable. The incidence of PMI was similar in the (1,1,1) group and the (0,1,1) group (12.9% versus 15.6%, P = 0.658). The final TIMI flow grade of the side branches and that of the main branches were also similar in the two groups. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, Medina classification (1,1,1) was not associated with PMI (odds ratio (OR), 0.996; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.379-2.621; P = 0.994), but the angle of the side branch < 45° (OR, 3.569; 95% CI, 1.320-9.654; P = 0.012), lesion length in a main vessel (per 10-mm increase) (OR, 1.508; 95% CI, 1.104-2.060; P = 0.010), and absence of side branch protection (OR, 3.034; 95% CI, 1.095-8.409; P = 0.033) were significantly associated with PMI. In conclusion, the Medina (1,1,1) bifurcation lesions did not increase the incidence of PMI as compared to Medina (0,1,1). However, the narrow side branch angle, diffuse long lesion, and absence of side branch protection were significantly associated with PMI. We should pay attention to these high-risk features in the treatment of true bifurcation lesions.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of coronary artery bifurcation lesions entails technical challenges and carries a higher risk of adverse events on follow-up, driven by repeat revascularisation and stent thrombosis. While most bifurcations can be tackled with a provisional (single-stent) approach, more complex lesions involving both branches (true bifurcation lesions) require a two-stent approach. In the latter context, several techniques have been proposed. Among them, the crush technique has dramatically evolved in recent years, and its more recent iterations have been shown to provide excellent and durable results, both for left main and non-left main bifurcations. The aim of the present work is to discuss the technical aspects and outcomes of the variants of the crush technique from the first description in the early 2000s to the present day.

There have been mixed results regarding the efficacy and safety of various percutaneous coronary intervention bifurcation techniques. An electronic search of Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed for randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of any bifurcation techniques. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis comparing the 1-stent versus 2-stent bifurcation approach, and a network meta-analysis comparing the different bifurcation techniques. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The analysis included 22 randomized trials with 6,359 patients. At a weighted follow-up of 25.9 months, there was no difference in MACE between 1-stent versus 2-stent approaches (risk ratio [RR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 1.56). Exploratory analysis suggested a higher risk of MACE with a 1-stent approach in studies using second-generation drug-eluting stents, if side branch lesion length ≥10 mm, and when final kissing balloon was used. There was no difference between 1-stent versus 2-stent approaches in all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.30), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.68), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.65), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.56) or stent thrombosis (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.78). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that double kissing crush technique was associated with lower MACE, MI, TVR, and target lesion revascularization, whereas culotte technique was associated with higher rates of stent thrombosis. In this meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found no difference between 1-stent versus 2-stent bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention approaches in the risk of MACE during long-term follow-up. Among the various bifurcation techniques, double kissing crush technique was associated with lower rates of MACE, target lesion revascularization, TVR, and MI.

The 'gold standard' in the management of left main coronary artery disease has historically been coronary artery bypass surgery. Recent innovations in drug-eluting stent technology coupled with the increasing utility of physiology and imaging guidance for procedures have led to an evolving role of percutaneous coronary intervention in left main disease of low and intermediate anatomical complexity. This revascularization modality carries the clear advantage of being less invasive and significantly reduced recovery times. This practice is currently supported by international guidelines, however, it remains a controversial topic in the field of interventional cardiology, and the long-term outcomes of a percutaneous strategy have been questioned. This review describes the current evidence base for the assessment and choice of intervention in left main coronary artery disease. The percutaneous revascularization techniques and use of imaging to optimize procedures and improve clinical outcomes have been discussed.