2015Journal of Korean Medical ScienceOpen access

Comparison of Angiographic Outcomes of Side Branch Ostium at Bifurcation Coronary Lesion between Two-stent and One-stent Techniques

Jae‐Bin Seo, Kyung Woo Park, Hae‐Young Lee, Hyun‐Jae Kang, Bon‐Kwon Koo, Sang‐Hyun Kim, Hyo-Soo Kim

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Although the favored strategy for coronary bifurcation intervention is stenting main vessel with provisional side branch (SB) stenting, we occasionally use two-stent strategy. The objective of this study was to investigate the angiographic outcome of SB ostium in two-stent group, compared with one-stent group. We analyzed 199 patients with bifurcation lesion who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent and follow up angiography. The patients were divided into one-stent group (167 lesions, 158 patients) and two-stent group (41 lesions, 41 patients). Prior to intervention, SB ostium minimal luminal diameter (MLD) was smaller in two-stent group than in one-stent group (1.08±0.55 mm vs. 1.39±0.60 mm; P=0.01). But, immediately after PCI, SB MLD of two-stent group became greater than that of one-stent group (2.41±0.40 mm vs. 1.18±0.68 mm; P<0.01). Six to nine months after PCI, this angiographic superiority in SB MLD of two-stent group persisted (1.56±0.71 mm vs. 1.13±0.53 mm; P<0.01), although there was larger late loss in two-stent group (0.85±0.74 mm vs. 0.05±0.57 mm; P<0.01). In terms of target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization rates, one-stent group showed better results than two-stent group. We could attain wider long term SB ostium after two-stent strategy than after one-stent strategy.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Although the favored strategy for coronary bifurcation intervention is stenting main vessel with provisional side branch (SB) stenting, we occasionally use two-stent strategy. The objective of this study was to investigate the angiographic outcome of SB ostium in two-stent group, compared with one-stent group. We analyzed 199 patients with bifurcation lesion who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent and follow up angiography. The patients were divided into one-stent group (167 lesions, 158 patients) and two-stent group (41 lesions, 41 patients). Prior to intervention, SB ostium minimal luminal diameter (MLD) was smaller in two-stent group than in one-stent group (1.08±0.55 mm vs. 1.39±0.60 mm; P=0.01). But, immediately after PCI, SB MLD of two-stent group became greater than that of one-stent group (2.41±0.40 mm vs. 1.18±0.68 mm; P<0.01). Six to nine months after PCI, this angiographic superiority in SB MLD of two-stent group persisted (1.56±0.71 mm vs. 1.13±0.53 mm; P<0.01), although there was larger late loss in two-stent group (0.85±0.74 mm vs. 0.05±0.57 mm; P<0.01). In terms of target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization rates, one-stent group showed better results than two-stent group. We could attain wider long term SB ostium after two-stent strategy than after one-stent strategy.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Although the favored strategy for coronary bifurcation intervention is stenting main vessel with provisional side branch (SB) stenting, we occasionally use two-stent strategy. The objective of this study was to investigate the angiographic outcome of SB ostium in two-stent group, compared with one-stent group. We analyzed 199 patients with bifurcation lesion who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent and follow up angiography. The patients were divided into one-stent group (167 lesions, 158 patients) and two-stent group (41 lesions, 41 patients). Prior to intervention, SB ostium minimal luminal diameter (MLD) was smaller in two-stent group than in one-stent group (1.08±0.55 mm vs. 1.39±0.60 mm; P=0.01). But, immediately after PCI, SB MLD of two-stent group became greater than that of one-stent group (2.41±0.40 mm vs. 1.18±0.68 mm; P<0.01). Six to nine months after PCI, this angiographic superiority in SB MLD of two-stent group persisted (1.56±0.71 mm vs. 1.13±0.53 mm; P<0.01), although there was larger late loss in two-stent group (0.85±0.74 mm vs. 0.05±0.57 mm; P<0.01). In terms of target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization rates, one-stent group showed better results than two-stent group. We could attain wider long term SB ostium after two-stent strategy than after one-stent strategy.

Key concepts: Ostium, Stent, Medicine, Conventional PCI, Percutaneous coronary intervention, Lesion, Radiology, Coronary angiography

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of Angiographic Outcomes of Side Branch Ostium at Bifurcation Coronary Lesion between Two-stent and One-stent Techniques — Research Paper | ScholarLens