Franz X Kleber1, Harald Rittger2, Josef Ludwig2, Antonia Schulz3, Detlef G Mathey4, Michael Boxberger5, Ralf Degenhardt6, Bruno Scheller7, Ruth H Strasser8. 1. Cardio Centrum Berlin, Academic Teaching Institution, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Unter den Linden 21, 10117, Berlin, Germany. fxk@gmx.eu. 2. Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Cardio Centrum Berlin, Academic Teaching Institution, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Unter den Linden 21, 10117, Berlin, Germany. 4. Universitäres Herz- und Gefäßzentrum Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Medical Scientific Affairs, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Melsungen, Germany. 6. Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Rotenburg a.d. Fulda, Germany. 7. Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg, Saar, Germany. 8. Technische Universität Dresden, Herzzentrum Dresden, Universitätsklinik Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We set out to investigate the benefit of distal main or side branch treatment with a DCB compared to POBA in coronary bifurcation lesions. BACKGROUND: The standard treatment of bifurcation lesions is application of a DES to the main branch with provisional side branch stenting. While this resulted in considerable improvement in overall MACE rate suboptimal side branch results remained a problem. METHODS: The study was performed from 2011 to 2013 in six German centers. Native bifurcation lesions were included if side branch vessel diameter was ≥2 and ≤3.5 mm and no proximal main branch lesions was found. After successful predilatation randomization was performed to either DCB application or no further treatment. Follow-up angiograms for QCA analysis were done after 9 months. Primary endpoint was late lumen loss (LLL). RESULTS:64 patients were successfully randomized. Minimal lumen diameter and grade of stenosis were equal in both groups. Only five stents were used as bail out. Angiographic follow-up was achieved in 75 % of patients. No patient died. There was one NSTEMI in the POBA group. Restenosis rate was 6 % in the DCB group vs 26 % in the POBA group (p = 0.045). TLR was necessary in one patient of the DCB group vs three patients of the POBA. The primary endpoint LLL was 0.13 mm in the DCB vs 0.51 mm in the POBA group (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: In bifurcation lesions that show only class A or B dissection and recoil not beyond 30 % the use of DCBs is a sound strategy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We set out to investigate the benefit of distal main or side branch treatment with a DCB compared to POBA in coronary bifurcation lesions. BACKGROUND: The standard treatment of bifurcation lesions is application of a DES to the main branch with provisional side branch stenting. While this resulted in considerable improvement in overall MACE rate suboptimal side branch results remained a problem. METHODS: The study was performed from 2011 to 2013 in six German centers. Native bifurcation lesions were included if side branch vessel diameter was ≥2 and ≤3.5 mm and no proximal main branch lesions was found. After successful predilatation randomization was performed to either DCB application or no further treatment. Follow-up angiograms for QCA analysis were done after 9 months. Primary endpoint was late lumen loss (LLL). RESULTS: 64 patients were successfully randomized. Minimal lumen diameter and grade of stenosis were equal in both groups. Only five stents were used as bail out. Angiographic follow-up was achieved in 75 % of patients. No patient died. There was one NSTEMI in the POBA group. Restenosis rate was 6 % in the DCB group vs 26 % in the POBA group (p = 0.045). TLR was necessary in one patient of the DCB group vs three patients of the POBA. The primary endpoint LLL was 0.13 mm in the DCB vs 0.51 mm in the POBA group (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: In bifurcation lesions that show only class A or B dissection and recoil not beyond 30 % the use of DCBs is a sound strategy.
Authors: Kengo Tanabe; Angela Hoye; Pedro A Lemos; Jiro Aoki; Chourmouzios A Arampatzis; Francesco Saia; Chi-hang Lee; Muzzafer Degertekin; Sjoerd H Hofma; Georgios Sianos; Eugene McFadden; Pieter C Smits; Willem J van der Giessen; Pim de Feyter; Ron T van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Angela Hoye; Ioannis Iakovou; Lei Ge; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Andrew T L Ong; John Cosgrave; Giuseppe M Sangiorgi; Flavio Airoldi; Matteo Montorfano; Iassen Michev; Alaide Chieffo; Mauro Carlino; Nicola Corvaja; Jiro Aoki; Gaston A Rodriguez Granillo; Marco Valgimigli; Georgios Sianos; Willem J van der Giessen; Pim J de Feyter; Ron T van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys; Antonio Colombo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-04-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Pieter R Stella; Anouar Belkacemi; Christophe Dubois; Hendrik Nathoe; Jo Dens; Christoph Naber; Tom Adriaenssens; Eric van Belle; Pieter Doevendans; Pierfrancesco Agostoni Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: U Zeymer; M Waliszewski; M Spiecker; O Gastmann; B Faurie; M Ferrari; M Alidoosti; C Palmieri; T N Heang; P Jl Ong; U Dietz Journal: Heart Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Georg M Fröhlich; Alexandra J Lansky; Dennis T Ko; Olga Archangelidi; Rodney De Palma; Adam Timmis; Pascal Meier Journal: BMC Med Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Francesco Burzotta; Jens Flensted Lassen; Thierry Lefèvre; Adrian P Banning; Yiannis S Chatzizisis; Thomas William Johnson; Miroslaw Ferenc; Sudhir Rathore; Remo Albiero; Manuel Pan; Olivier Darremont; David Hildick-Smith; Alaide Chieffo; Marco Zimarino; Yves Louvard; Goran Stankovic Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Tudor C Poerner; Corinna Duderstadt; Björn Goebel; Daniel Kretzschmar; Hans R Figulla; Sylvia Otto Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 5.460