Comparison between one-stent versus two-stent technique for treatment of left main bifurcation lesions: A large single-center data.

BACKGROUND

Comparisons between one- and two-stent strategies for unprotected left main (UPLM) coronary bifurcation disease have yielded inconsistent results. This large-sample, long-term follow-up study comparatively assessed stenting strategy impact in patients with distal left main disease.

METHODS

Totally, 1,528 consecutive patients underwent left main percutaneous coronary intervention in a single center from January 2004 to December 2010 were enrolled; among them, 1033 patients with distal UPLM lesions treated by one (n = 661) or two (n = 372) drug-eluting stent (DES) technique were comparatively analyzed. Primary outcome was rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR).

RESULTS

Overall, baseline SYNTAX score was low-intermediate (one stent: 25 ± 6 vs. two stents: 26 ± 5, P = 0.02), and mean clinical SYNTAX score was similar between groups (one stent: 30 ± 22 vs. two stents: 31 ± 22, P = 0.47). Final kissing balloon was successfully achieved in most of the patients treated with two-stent technique (one stent: 30.9% vs. two stents: 96.0%, P < 0.01), and use of intravascular ultrasound was also more common in them (one stent: 32.2% vs. two stents: 53.8%, P < 0.01). At mean 4 years follow-up, rates of MACE (one stent: 9.2% vs. two stents: 11.6%, P = 0.23), death, MI, and TVR were similar between groups. In multivariate propensity-matched regression analysis, two-stent technique was not predictive of MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with distal UPLM disease and low-intermediate SYNTAX score treated with DES, clinical outcomes appear similar between optimal two-stent implantation and one-stent strategy. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.