Two-stent techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions (main vessel first versus side branch first): results from the COBIS (COronary BIfurcation Stenting) II registry.

AIMS

It has not been known which two-stent technique is best for treating bifurcation lesions. We aimed to compare the outcomes from main vessel (MV) first and side branch (SB) first techniques for patients with bifurcation lesions requiring a two-stent approach.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 673 patients with bifurcation lesions were treated with two-stent techniques: MV first (n=250) or SB first (n=423). The rate of a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation (TLR) was similar in the two groups (SB first versus MV first, 15.1% versus 15.6% in the total population [p=0.90]; 14.3% versus 17.4% in a propensity score-matched population [p=0.80]). There were significant interactions associated with TLR risk between MV and SB first techniques according to angiographic factors. Patients in the MV first group had a lower risk of TLR when they had a lesion with MV diameter stenosis ≥70% (p for interaction=0.04), more severe stenosis of the MV than of the SB (p for interaction=0.008), or MV lesion length ≥18 mm (p for interaction=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes were similar for patients treated with MV or SB first two-stent techniques. Using "more severe lesion first" two-stent techniques might offer a favourable prognosis.