| Literature DB >> 34568542 |
Yuya Adachi1, Yoshihisa Kinoshita1, Akira Murata2, Yoshiaki Kawase3, Munenori Okubo3, Yoriyasu Suzuki2, Tatsuya Ito2, Hitoshi Matsuo3, Takahiko Suzuki1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify the predictive factors for suboptimal result in side branch (SB) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) bifurcation lesions and clinical outcomes of patients with suboptimal result in SB.Entities:
Keywords: Bifurcation; CTO, chronic total occlusion; Coronary chronic total occlusion; IVUS, intravascular ultrasound; MB, main branch; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; SB, side branch; Side branch; TIMI, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction; TLR, target lesion revascularization
Year: 2021 PMID: 34568542 PMCID: PMC8449161 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100873
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc ISSN: 2352-9067
Fig. 1Inclusion flow diagram of study population.
Baseline patient characteristics.
| Overall | Suboptimal side branch treatment | Optimal side branch treatment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients, n | n = 314 | n = 47 | n = 267 | p value |
| Baseline clinical characteristics | ||||
| Age, years | 69.2 ± 9.5 | 68.9 ± 9.2 | 69.5 ± 10.2 | 0.89 |
| Male, n | 267 (85.0%) | 38 (80.9%) | 229 (85.8%) | 0.33 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 24.6 ± 12.4 | 23.9 ± 13.0 | 24.9 ± 13.2 | 0.85 |
| Diabetes mellitus, n | 45 (14.3%) | 6 (12.8%) | 39 (14.6%) | 0.21 |
| Hypertension, n | 122 (38.9%) | 19 (40.4%) | 103 (38.6%) | 0.22 |
| Dyslipidemia, n | 116 (36.9%) | 15 (31.9%) | 101 (37.8%) | 0.78 |
| CKD, n | 122 (38.9%) | 16 (34.0%) | 106 (39.7%) | 0.11 |
| Hemodialysis, n | 28 (8.9%) | 5 (10.6%) | 23 (8.6%) | 0.13 |
| Current smoker, n | 22 (7.0%) | 5 (10.6%) | 17 (6.3%) | 0.20 |
| Previous PCI, n | 31 (9.9%) | 4 (8.5%) | 27 (10.1%) | 0.38 |
| Previous CABG, n | 19 (6.1%) | 4 (8.5%) | 15 (5.6%) | 0.41 |
| Previous MI, n | 85 (27.1%) | 13 (27.7%) | 72 (27.0%) | 0.45 |
| Occlusion location | ||||
| Left anterior descending | 146 (46.5%) | 25 (53.2%) | 121 (45.3%) | 0.25 |
| Left circumflex | 82 (26.1%) | 9 (19.1%) | 73 (27.3%) | |
| Right coronary artery | 86 (27.3%) | 13 (27.7%) | 73 (27.3%) | |
| Medina classification | ||||
| 1, 1, 1 | 110 (35.0%) | 26 (55.3%) | 84 (31.5%) | <0.05 |
| 1, 0, 1 | 19 (6.1%) | 5 (10.6%) | 14 (5.2%) | |
| 0, 1, 1 | 27 (8.6%) | 6 (12.8%) | 21 (7.9%) | |
| 1, 1, 0 | 38 (12.1%) | 4 (8.5%) | 34 (12.7%) | |
| 1, 0, 0 | 91 (29.0%) | 4 (8.5%) | 87 (32.6%) | |
| 0, 1, 0 | 29 (9.2%) | 2 (4.3%) | 27 (10.1%) | |
| Presence of stenosis in the side branch | 156 (49.7%) | 37 (78.7%) | 119 (44.6%) | <0.001 |
| Side branch location | ||||
| Proximal | 144 (45.9%) | 14 (29.8%) | 130 (48.9%) | <0.05 |
| Occluded segment | 82 (26.1%) | 22 (46.8%) | 60 (22.5%) | |
| Distal | 88 (28.0%) | 11 (23.4%) | 77 (28.9%) |
Values are numbers (%), mean ± SD. BMI, body mass index; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CKD, chronic kidney disease; MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.
Procedural patient characteristics and clinical outcome.
| Overall | Suboptimal side branch treatment | Optimal side branch treatment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients, n | n = 314 | n = 47 | n = 267 | p value |
| CTO strategy | ||||
| Antegrade technique | ||||
| AWE, n | 204 (64.9%) | 12 (25.5%) | 192 (71.9%) | 0.11 |
| ADR, n | 4 (1.3%) | 1 (2.1%) | 3 (1.1%) | |
| Retrograde technique | ||||
| RWE, n | 21 (6.9%) | 3 (6.3%) | 18 (6.7%) | <0.05 |
| RDR, n | 85 (27.1%) | 31 (66.0%) | 54 (20.2%) | |
| Wire tracking patterns at side branch ostium | ||||
| Intimal tracking, n | 225 (71.7%) | 15 (31.9%) | 210 (78.7%) | <0.001 |
| Sub-intimal tracking, n | 89 (28.3%) | 32 (68.1%) | 57 (21.3%) | |
| Stenting method | ||||
| 1. One-stent technique, n | 286 (91.1%) | 44 (93.6%) | 242 (90.6%) | 0.45 |
| Kissing balloon technique, n | 165 (52.5%) | 24 (51.1%) | 141 (52.8%) | 0.88 |
| 2. Two-stent technique, n | 28 (8.9%) | 3 (6.4%) | 25 (9.4%) | 0.39 |
| Main vessel | ||||
| Stent length, mm | 24.6 ± 6.9 | 23.4 ± 6.7 | 24.3 ± 6.9 | 0.64 |
| Stent diameter, mm | 3.1 ± 0.3 | 3.4 ± 0.4 | 3.2 ± 0.3 | 0.31 |
| Side branch dissection n | 38 (12.1%) | 15 (31.9%) | 23 (8.6%) | <0.001 |
| Carina shift / plaque shift, n | 22 (7.0%) | 7 (14.9%) | 15 (5.6%) | <0.05 |
| Hemodynamic support with IABP, n | 18 (5.7%) | 3 (6.4%) | 15 (5.6%) | 0.81 |
| Clinical outcome on follow-up | ||||
| Cardiac death within 1 year, n | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | – |
| Myocardial infarction within 1 year, n | 1 (0.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.4%) | 0.47 |
| TLR for main branch within 1 year, n | 30 (9.6%) | 6 (12.8%) | 24 (9.0%) | 0.65 |
| Left anterior descending | 11(7.6%) | 2/25 (8.0%) | 9/121 (7.4%) | 0.64 |
| Left circumflex | 9 (11.0%) | 1/9 (11.1%) | 8/73 (11.0%) | 0.76 |
| Right coronary artery | 10 (11.6%) | 3/13 (23.1%) | 7/73 (9.6%) | 0.04 |
| TLR for side branch within 1 year, n | 12 (3.8%) | 7 (14.9%) | 5 (1.9%) | <0.001 |
| Left anterior descending | 7 (4.8%) | 4/25 (16.0%) | 3/121 (2.5%) | <0.001 |
| Left circumflex | 2 (2.4%) | 1/9 (11.1%) | 1/73 (1.4%) | <0.001 |
| Right coronary artery | 3 (3.5%) | 2/13 (15.4%) | 1/73 (1.4%) | <0.001 |
Values are numbers (%), mean ± SD. ADR, antegrade dissection reentry; AWE, antegrade wire escalation; CTO, chronic total occlusion; IABP: Intra‑aortic balloon pump; MB, main branch; RDR, retrograde dissection reentry; RWE, retrograde wire escalation; SB, side branch; TLR, target lesion revascularization.
Univariate and Multivariate regression analysis for the association between suboptimal result in side branch and clinical findings.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explanatory variables | OR | 95% CI | p value | OR | 95% CI | p value |
| Adjusting factors | ||||||
| Hemodialysis | 2.07 | 1.17–3.63 | 0.012 | 1.26 | 0.67–2.39 | 0.48 |
| Presence of stenosis in the side branch | 2.88 | 2.28–3.63 | <0.001 | 1.44 | 1.09–1.90 | 0.011 |
| Bifurcations located within the occluded segment | 1.66 | 1.24–2.23 | 0.001 | 1.49 | 1.06–2.09 | 0.022 |
| Retrograde technique | 1.51 | 1.06–2.14 | 0.02 | 1.19 | 0.85–1.68 | 0.31 |
| Sub-intimal tracking at SB ostium | 2.73 | 1.63–4.45 | <0.001 | 2.27 | 1.39–3.58 | <0.001 |
OR, odds ratio; other abbreviations as in Table 1.
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier curve showing cumulative incidence of (A) target lesion revascularization in all lesions and (B) target lesion revascularization in right coronary artery in the suboptimal side branch treatment and optimal side branch treatment groups.
Cox regression analysis for the predictors of target lesion revascularization for main branch.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explanatory variables | HR | 95% CI | p value | HR | 95% CI | p value |
| Adjusting factors | ||||||
| CKD | 1.37 | 0.31–6.11 | 0.68 | |||
| Suboptimal result in side branch | ||||||
| in the left anterior descending | 1.02 | 0.74–1.40 | 0.92 | |||
| in the left circumflex | 1.08 | 0.93–1.26 | 0.32 | |||
| in the right coronary artery | 1.15 | 1.01–1.30 | 0.03 | 1.12 | 1.00–1.25 | 0.04 |
| Presence of stenosis in the side branch | 1.62 | 1.02–2.59 | 0.04 | 1.12 | 0.79–1.58 | 0.54 |
| Bifurcations located within the occluded segment | 1.13 | 0.47–2.88 | 0.79 | |||
| Retrograde technique | 1.12 | 0.58–2.19 | 0.73 | |||
| Sub-intimal tracking at SB ostium | 1.41 | 1.05–1.89 | 0.02 | 1.32 | 1.01–1.72 | 0.04 |
| Two-stent technique | 0.25 | 0.03–2.20 | 0.21 | |||
| Carina shift / plaque shift | 1.26 | 0.92–1.74 | 0.15 | |||
HR, hazard ratio; other abbreviations as in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3.