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.
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.