Single stenting versus double stenting technique in true bifurcation coronary lesions
Authors: Ribeiro Da Silva M , Brandao M , Rodrigues A , Guerreiro C , Ribeiro Queiros P , Santos Silva G , Santos Ferreira D , Pires-Morais G , Melica B , Santos L , Braga P , Fontes-Carvalho R 
Published: October 2021

Introduction

The ideal treatment technique for coronary bifurcation lesions remains unknown. Although single-stenting strategy has been recommended by default, little evidence exists regarding clinical outcomes between single versus double-stenting in current practice.

Purpose

To compare procedural details and clinical outcomes between single vs double-stenting techniques in true bifurcation coronary lesions.

Methods

Retrospective study of all patients (pts) referred for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of true bifurcation lesions between June 2018 and June 2020. Only Medina X,X,1 lesions were included. Pts were split in 2 groups: group 1 (single-stenting) and group 2 (double-stenting). Procedural details and clinical outcomes were assessed. Acute and long-term adverse events included procedural complications (a composite outcome of side branch occlusion, coronary iatrogenic dissection and type 4 acute myocardial infarction (AMI)) and a composite of cardiovascular death, AMI, stroke, re-restenosis and reintervention, respectively.

Results

A total of 118 pts were included, 74,6% male, mean age of 66,4±11 years.

Ninety-five pts (80,5%) were treated with single-stenting (G1) and 23 pts (19,5%) with double-stenting technique (G2). Both groups were well matched regarding baseline characteristics and clinical presentation. T and protrusion (TAP) and minicrush were the most frequent double-stenting techniques (43,5% and 21,7%).

G2 lesions mainly involved the left main (LM) and proximal left anterior descendent artery (LAD) (52,2%) and in G1 mid LAD (34,7%). LM lesions were more common in G2 (26,1% vs 8,4%; p=0,030). G1 had more lesions Medina 1,1,1 (75,8% vs 52,2%; p=0,025) and less Medina 0,1,1 (9,5% vs 30,4%; p=0,015). Proximal optimization technique and kissing balloon occurred more in G2 (p&lt;0,05). G2 had more intravascular ultrasound guided PCI (p=0,046). Femoral access, heparin, contrast and radiation dose, and fluoroscopy time were higher in G2 (p&lt;0,05). Acute adverse composite outcome was similar in both groups (G1 13% vs G2 14,3%; p=0,855).

Median follow-up was similar (G1 16,8±7,9 and G2 19,7±8,8 months; p=0,127). G1 had less occurrence of long-term adverse composite outcome (7,4% vs 26,3%; p=0,032). Excluding interventions in LM, G2 had more significant incidence of acute events (20% vs 2,6%; p=0,028), and higher rate of long-term adverse events (20% vs 4,2%; p=0,056). In interventions of the LM only, no differences were noticed in acute and long-term composite events between groups.

Conclusions

Double-stenting techniques in true coronary bifurcation lesions included more often LM lesions and were complex procedures requiring frequently intracoronary imaging. Although acute adverse events were similar to those of single-stenting, long-term adverse outcomes were more frequent in double-stent group, except for LM lesions.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.