AIMS: Lesion location might influence the efficacy of the bifurcation two-stent approach relative to the one-stent approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: One-year outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation with the two-stent approach were compared to those with the one-stent approach in left main coronary artery (LMCA) bifurcation (945 lesions) and in left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) bifurcation (1271 lesions). The two-stent approach was used more frequently in LMCA than in LAD. The target-lesion revascularisation (TLR) rate in the two-stent group was significantly higher than that in the one-stent group in LMCA (24.2% vs. 5.6%, p<0.0001), but not in LAD (9.0% vs. 5.4%, p=0.056). Adjusted odds ratio of two-stent versus one-stent for TLR was 4.93 (3.01-8.08, p<0.0001) in LMCA and 1.15 (0.64-2.07, p=0.63) in LAD, respectively (interaction p<0.0001). Angiographic restenosis rates in the main branch were significantly higher in the two-stent group in both LMCA and LAD (11.0% vs. 4.9%, p=0.02; and 13.2% vs. 6.8%, p=0.02). Restenosis rates in the side branch were significantly higher in the two-stent group in LMCA (35.3% vs. 14.5%, p<0.0001), but not in LAD (15.1% vs. 22.6%, p=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Risk of TLR after bifurcation stenting in lesions that needed the two-stent approach was significantly different between LMCA and LAD bifurcations.
AIMS: Lesion location might influence the efficacy of the bifurcation two-stent approach relative to the one-stent approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: One-year outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation with the two-stent approach were compared to those with the one-stent approach in left main coronary artery (LMCA) bifurcation (945 lesions) and in left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) bifurcation (1271 lesions). The two-stent approach was used more frequently in LMCA than in LAD. The target-lesion revascularisation (TLR) rate in the two-stent group was significantly higher than that in the one-stent group in LMCA (24.2% vs. 5.6%, p<0.0001), but not in LAD (9.0% vs. 5.4%, p=0.056). Adjusted odds ratio of two-stent versus one-stent for TLR was 4.93 (3.01-8.08, p<0.0001) in LMCA and 1.15 (0.64-2.07, p=0.63) in LAD, respectively (interaction p<0.0001). Angiographic restenosis rates in the main branch were significantly higher in the two-stent group in both LMCA and LAD (11.0% vs. 4.9%, p=0.02; and 13.2% vs. 6.8%, p=0.02). Restenosis rates in the side branch were significantly higher in the two-stent group in LMCA (35.3% vs. 14.5%, p<0.0001), but not in LAD (15.1% vs. 22.6%, p=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Risk of TLR after bifurcation stenting in lesions that needed the two-stent approach was significantly different between LMCA and LAD bifurcations.