Optimal Strategy for Provisional Side Branch Intervention in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions

Final kissing balloon dilatation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with an upfront provisional stenting strategy

BACKGROUND

The impact of final kissing balloon inflation (FKB) in patients treated with an upfront provisional strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions is controversial.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the impact of FKB on patient- and lesion-oriented outcomes in a large real-world cohort.

METHODS

The ULTRA-BIFURCAT registry was obtained by patient-level merging the BIFURCAT and ULTRA registries. Pairs of patients were generated with propensity score matching (PSM). The primary outcome of interest was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) - a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) or stent thrombosis. A lesion-oriented composite outcome (LOCO) - a composite of target vessel MI (TVMI) or TLR - along with each single component of MACE represented the secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses included the site of bifurcation (unprotected left main [ULM] vs non-ULM), side branch involvement (true bifurcation vs non-true bifurcation), side branch diameter and lesion length. Follow-up was censored at 800 days.

RESULTS

A total of 5,607 patients undergoing a provisional stenting technique were selected for the present analysis. PSM generated 1,784 pairs. Between the matched patients with FKB versus no FKB, no significant difference in MACE was observed (9.0% vs 8.6%; p=0.68). FKB was associated with a lower rate of the LOCO (1.9% vs 2.9%; p=0.04) compared to the no FKB group, driven by lower rates of TVMI (0.2% vs 0.5%; p=0.03) and TLR (1.8% vs 2.6%; p=0.14). These results were confirmed in the subgroups of patients treated for bifurcations with side branches with a diameter >2.5 mm and for true coronary bifurcation lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients treated for coronary bifurcation lesions with provisional stenting, FKB had no significant impact on MACE but was associated with a mild reduction in the incidence of the LOCO.

Differential Prognosis of True Bifurcation Lesions According to Left Main Versus Non-Left Main Location and Treatment Strategy

BACKGROUND

Although true bifurcation lesions are associated with a high risk of procedural complications, the differential prognostic implications of percutaneous coronary intervention for true bifurcations according to lesion location are unclear. This study aimed to identify whether clinical outcomes of true bifurcation lesions differed between left main coronary artery (LM) and non-LM bifurcations and to determine the optimal treatment strategy for subtypes of bifurcation lesions in the current-generation drug-eluting stent era.

METHODS

The ULTRA-BIFURCAT (Combined Insights From the Unified COBIS III, RAIN, and ULTRA Registries) was created by merging 3 bifurcation-dedicated registries from Korea and Italy. For this, 6548 patients treated with bifurcation lesions were stratified by lesion location and subtype. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis) at 800 days.

RESULTS

In patients with an LM bifurcation, those with a true bifurcation had a significantly higher risk of a MACE than those with a nontrue bifurcation (20.2% versus 13.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.44 [95% CI, 1.11-1.86]; P=0.006). Conversely, there was no significant difference in the risk of a MACE according to true versus nontrue bifurcation in patients with non-LM bifurcation lesions (9.0% versus 8.8%; adjusted HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.82-1.27]; P=0.849). For LM true bifurcations, MACE rates were comparable between 1-stent and 2-stent strategies, whereas for LM nontrue bifurcations, the 2-stent strategy was associated with a significantly higher risk of MACEs than the 1-stent strategy. No significant differences in the risk of MACEs were observed in non-LM bifurcation lesions according to lesion subtype or treatment strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes were worse for LM true bifurcation lesions than non-LM true bifurcation lesions. A provisional 1-stent strategy should be the preferred approach for treating LM nontrue bifurcation lesions.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03068494, NCT03544294, and NCT05205148.

Standardized angiographic projections allow evaluation of coronary artery side branches with quantitative flow ratio (QFR)

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel, software-based noninvasive method for the quantitative evaluation of coronary physiology. QFR results correlate with invasive FFR measurements in the three main epicardial coronary arteries. However, QFR data for the evaluation of coronary side branches (SB) are scarce. The evaluation of QFR-performance of SB was retrospective and prospective. Eighty-seven patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome, who received angiography using routine core lab projections, were retrospectively analyzed. On the second part 37 patients, who received angiography using recommended standardized coronary angiography projections, were prospectively analyzed. Quantitative analysis was performed for SB with a maximum lumen diameter proximal of ≥2 mm based on quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) by two certified experts with the software QAngio XA 3D 3.2. Using routine projections, QFR computation in 55 % of the SB were obtained (123 out of 224). Using standardized projections, 85 % of SB were computed by QFR (64 out of 75; p < 0.001 vs routine projections). The fluoroscopy time for recommended projections was not significantly different as opposed to routine projections (3.75 ± 2.2 vs. 4.58 ± 3.00 min, p = 2.6986). Using the standardized projections was associated with a higher amount of contrast medium (53.44 ± 24.23 vs. 87.95 ± 43.73 ml, p < 0.01), longer overall procedure time (23.23 ± 16.35 vs. 36.14 ± 17.21 min, p < 0.01) and a higher dose area product (1152.28 ± 576.70 vs. 2540.68 ± 1774.07 cGycm2, p < 0.01). Our study shows that the blood flow of the vast majority of coronary SB can be determined non-invasively by QFR in addition to the main epicardial coronary arteries when standardized projections are used.

Outcomes of Provisional Stenting With Versus Without Side Branch Intervention in Patients With Bifurcation Lesion-Related ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

To date, the best approach to coronary bifurcation lesion remains unsettled, and the parameters to guide side branch ballooning or stenting are not yet defined. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes after provisional stenting with versus without side branch intervention. A cohort was conducted on 132 patients who underwent coronary angiography at Toulouse University Hospital for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with large culprit nonleft main coronary bifurcation lesion. Study participants were divided into 2 groups depending on the performance or not of a side branch intervention. We observed the living status at 1-year after hospital discharge. Side branch intervention by balloon inflation or final balloon kissing technique was performed in 34.1% of study participants. At 1-year follow-up, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 7.8 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1 to 15), and although it seemed higher in the side branch intervention group (10 per 100 person-years [95% CI 3.8 to 26.7] vs 6.6 per 100 persons-years [95% CI 2.8 to 15.9]), the survival analyses showed no differences in survival outcomes (hazard ratio side branch intervention 1.55 [0.42 to 5.78], p = 0.513). In conclusion, in the setting of a coronary bifurcation causing ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, simple provisional stenting without side branch intervention showed a low mortality rate and no differences in the 1-year survival outcomes.

Comparison of Outcomes Between 1- and 2-Stent Techniques for Medina Classification 0.0.1 Coronary Bifurcation Lesions

BACKGROUND

Although Medina 0.0.1 bifurcation lesions are often treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in real-world practice, the optimal revascularization strategy for this lesion is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between 1- and 2-stent strategies in patients treated with PCI for Medina 0.0.1 bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

The extended BIFURCAT (Combined Insights From the Unified RAIN [Very Thin Stents for Patients with Left Main or Bifurcation in Real Life] and COBIS [Coronary Bifurcation Stenting] Bifurcation Registries) registry was obtained by patient-level merging the dedicated bifurcation COBIS II, III, and RAIN registries. Among 8,434 patients with bifurcation lesions undergoing PCI, 345 (4.1%) with Medina 0.0.1 lesions were selected for the current analysis. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac event (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis) at 800 days.

RESULTS

In the total population, 209 patients (60.6%) received PCI with a 1-stent strategy and the remaining 136 patients (39.4%) with a 2-stent strategy. There was a tendency for higher use of a 1-stent strategy over time (36.0%, 47.4%, and 90.4% in 2003-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2017, respectively; P for trend < 0.001). For the treatment of Medina 0.0.1 lesions, there was no significant difference in the risk of MACE between 1- and 2-stent strategies (1 stent vs 2 stent, 14.3% vs 13.9%; HR: 1.034; 95% CI: 0.541-1.977; P = 0.92). The risk of MACE was also not significantly different when stratifying into 3 groups (1-stent crossover only, 1-stent with strut opening, and 2-stent strategy).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a Medina 0.0.1 type bifurcation lesion, PCI with a 1-stent strategy showed comparable outcomes to that of a 2-stent strategy. (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting II [COBIS II]; NCT01642992; Coronary Bifurcation Stenting III [COBIS III]; NCT03068494; Very Thin Stents for Patients with Left Main or Bifurcation in Real Life [RAIN]; NCT03544294).

An Approach to Non-left Main Bifurcation Lesions: A Contemporary Review

Bifurcated anatomical locations in the arterial tree, such as coronary artery bifurcations, are prone to develop obstructive atherosclerotic lesions due to the pro-atherogenic low wall shear stress. The percutaneous treatment of bifurcation lesions is among the most challenging complex coronary interventions, including different multistep stenting strategies. Even though provisional side branch (SB) stenting is recommended as the primary approach in most cases, the debate continues between provisional SB and upfront two-stent strategies, particularly in complex bifurcations consisting of a significantly diseased SB that supplies a crucial myocardial territory. This review will highlight the importance of understanding the bifurcation philosophy and provide an individual algorithmic approach to find the optimal treatment strategy for each patient with a non-left main coronary bifurcation lesion. Considering the most recent scientific evidence, the advantages and disadvantages of each stenting technique and the role of intracoronary imaging to optimize bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes will be discussed.

Provisional Strategy for Left Main Stem Bifurcation Disease: A State-of-the-Art Review of Technique and Outcomes

Left main coronary artery (LMA) disease jeopardizes a large area of myocardium and increases the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. LMCA disease is found in 5% to 7% of all diagnostic coronary angiographies, and more than 80% of the patients enrolled in recent large randomized controlled left main trials had distal left main bifurcation or trifurcation disease. Emerging clinical evidence from prospective all-comer registries and randomized trials has provided a solid basis for percutaneous coronary intervention as a treatment option in selected patients with unprotected LMCA disease; however, to date, no uniform recommendations as to optimal stenting strategy for LMCA bifurcation lesions exist. This review provides an overview of provisional stenting technique and escalation to 2-stent strategies in LMCA bifurcation lesions. Data from randomized controlled trials and registries are reviewed. Technical characteristics of optimal provisional LMCA stenting technique and angiographic and intravascular determinants of escalation are also summarized.

Provisional stenting with side branch rescue stenting is associated with increased 3-year target lesion failure in patients with acute coronary syndrome and coronary bifurcation lesions

Background

Provisional stenting (PS) is the main treatment for a majority of coronary bifurcation lesion and includes PS with 1-stent and PS with 2-stent. However, the treatment difference between PS with 1-stent and with 2-stent remains unclear in patients with the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and coronary bifurcation lesions.

Materials and methods

Overall, 820 ACS patients with Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1 coronary bifurcation lesion who had completed 3-year follow-up were included and assigned to the PS with 1-stent (n = 519) or the PS with 2-stent (n = 301) according to the use of final stenting technique. The primary endpoint was the target lesion failure (TLF) at 3 years since stenting procedures.

Results

At 3-year follow-up, TLF occurred in 85 (16.4%) patients in the PS with 1-stent group and 69 (22.9%) in the PS with 2-stent group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–2.17, p = 0.021), mainly driven by a higher rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) in the PS with 2-stent group (13.0% vs. 8.3%, HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04–2.61, p = 0.033). Complex bifurcations, side branch (SB) pretreatment, intravascular imaging guidance, and hyperlipidemia were the four predictors for 3-year TLF. SB pretreatment was associated with increased 3-year TLR, leading to an extremely higher 3-year TLF.

Conclusion

Provisional with 2-stent for patients with ACS is associated with a higher rate of 3-year TLF, mainly due to increased requirement of revascularization. SB pretreatment should be avoided for simple bifurcation lesion.

Percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions

Bifurcation coronary artery disease is common as the development of atherosclerosis is facilitated by altered endothelial shear stress. Multiple anatomical and physiological factors need to be considered when treating bifurcation lesions. To achieve optimal results, various stenting techniques have been developed, each with benefits and limitations. In this state-of-the-art review we describe technically important characteristics of bifurcation lesions and summarise the evidence supporting contemporary bifurcation techniques.

Physiological Approach for Coronary Artery Bifurcation Disease: Position Statement by Korean, Japanese, and European Bifurcation Clubs

Coronary artery bifurcation lesions are frequently encountered in cardiac catheterization laboratories and are associated with more complex procedures and worse clinical outcomes than nonbifurcation lesions. Therefore, anatomical and physiological assessment of bifurcation lesions before, during, and after percutaneous coronary intervention is of paramount clinical importance. Physiological assessment can help interventionalists appreciate the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery disease and guide ischemia-directed revascularization. However, it is important to understand that the physiological approach for bifurcation disease is more important than simply using physiological indexes for its assessment. This joint consensus document by the Korean, Japanese, and European bifurcation clubs presents the concept of a physiological approach for coronary bifurcation lesions, as well as current knowledge, practical tips, pitfalls, and future directions of applying physiological indexes in bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention. This document aims to guide interventionalists in performing appropriate physiology-based assessments and treatment decisions for coronary bifurcation lesions.

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background Bifurcation lesions account for 20% of all percutaneous coronary interventions and represent a complex subset which are associated with lower procedural success and higher rates of restenosis. The ideal bifurcation technique, however, remains elusive. Methods and Results Extensive search of the literature was performed to pull data from randomized clinical trials that met predetermined inclusion criteria. Conventional meta-analysis produced pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% CI of 2-stent technique versus provisional stent on prespecified outcomes. Both frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed to compare bifurcation techniques. A total of 8318 patients were included from 29 randomized clinical trials. Conventional meta-analysis showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization between 2-stent techniques and provisional stenting. Frequentist network meta-analysis revealed that double kissing crush was associated with lower cardiac death (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.84), major adverse cardiac events (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.64), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.88), target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization when compared with provisional stenting. Double kissing crush was also superior to other 2-stent techniques, including T-stent or T and protrusion, dedicated bifurcation stent, and culotte. Conclusions Double kissing crush was associated with lower risk of cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization compared with provisional stenting and was superior to other 2-stent techniques. Superiority of 2-stent strategy over provisional stenting was observed in subgroup meta-analysis stratified to side branch lesion length ≥10 mm.

Impact of stent thickness on clinical outcomes in small vessel and bifurcation lesions: a RAIN-CARDIOGROUP VII sub-study

BACKGROUND

The clinical impact of stent strut thickness in coronary bifurcation lesions in small vessels has not been assessed in a real-world population.

METHODS

All 506 patients enrolled in the RAIN study, undergoing PCI in a vessel with a diameter 2.5 mm or less were retrospectively evaluated and divided into two groups according to stent strut thickness: 74 μm (n = 206) versus 81 μm (n = 300); 87.1% of the lesions involved bifurcations. TLF [defined as a composite of myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR)] was the primary endpoint, with MACE (a composite of death, MI and TLR), its components and stent thrombosis the secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

After 16 (14-18) months, a lower incidence of TLF (4.3 vs. 9.8%, P = 0.026) and ST (1.0 vs. 3.0%, P = 0.042) was seen in the 74 μm group, whereas MACE occurred in 60 of 506 patients, with no statistical difference between the two groups (9.7 vs. 13.3%, P = 0.070). At multivariate analysis, chronic renal failure increased the risk of TLF while thinner strut was an independent protective factor (hazard ratio 0.51, CI 0.17-0.85, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

In this real-world population, patients being treated for small vessels lesions with thinner strut stents had lower rates of TLF, MI and ST.

5-Year Outcome of Simple Crossover Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Compared With Side Branch Opening

Background

The optimal side branch (SB) treatment strategy after simple crossover stenting in bifurcation lesions is still controversial.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of a 1-stent strategy with simple crossover alone versus with an additional SB–opening procedure in patients with left main (LM) and non-LM coronary bifurcation lesions.

Methods

Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with a 1-stent strategy for bifurcation lesions including LM were selected from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) III registry and divided into the simple crossover–alone group and SB-opening group. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the 5-year rate of target lesion failure (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion repeat revascularization).

Results

Among 2,194 patients who underwent the 1-stent strategy, 1,685 (76.8%) patients were treated with simple crossover alone, and 509 (23.2%) patients were treated with an additional SB-opening procedure. Although the baseline SB angiographic disease was more severe in the SB-opening group, the final lumen diameter of the SB was larger. The 5-year observed target lesion failure rate was similar between the 2 groups (7.0% in the simple crossover vs. 6.7% in SB-opening group; hazard ratio: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.48; p = 0.947), even in the subgroup analyses including LM (9.5% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.442) and true bifurcation (5.3% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.362). The results were not changed after an inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. There was no difference in the overall and SB-related target lesion revascularization rate in both groups.

Conclusions

The long-term clinical outcome of the 1-stent strategy with simple crossover alone for coronary bifurcation lesions was acceptable compared to those of additional SB-opening procedures. (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting [COBIS] Registry III [COBIS III]; NCT03068494)

Asia Pacific consensus document on coronary bifurcation interventions

Coronary bifurcation intervention is common but complex. Progress in this field has been made in recent years with considerable contribution from the Asia Pacific (APAC) region. However, the standard of practice varies across the APAC region due to differences in culture, socioeconomic state and healthcare set-up. Practice may also differ from the rest of the world. Hence, a panel of experts was invited to discuss topics relevant to bifurcation intervention in order to make a concerted effort to achieve consensus that is applicable within the region and in line with available evidence.

Optimal strategy for side branch treatment in patients with left main coronary bifurcation lesions

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There are no guidelines regarding the most appropriate approach for provisional side branch (SB) intervention in left main (LM) bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

The present prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial compared conservative vs aggressive strategies for provisional SB intervention during LM bifurcation treatment. Although the trial was designed to enroll 700 patients, it was prematurely terminated due to slow enrollment. For 160 non-true bifurcation lesions, a 1-stent technique without kissing balloon inflation was applied in the conservative strategy, whereas a 1-stent technique with mandatory kissing balloon inflation was applied in the aggressive strategy. For 46 true bifurcation lesions, a stepwise approach was applied in the conservative strategy (after main vessel stenting, SB ballooning when residual stenosis> 75%; then, SB stenting if residual stenosis> 50% or there was a dissection). An elective 2-stent technique was applied in the aggressive strategy. The primary outcome was a 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.

RESULTS

Among non-true bifurcation lesions, the conservative strategy group used a smaller amount of contrast dye than the aggressive strategy group. There were no significant differences in 1-year TLF between the 2 strategies among non-true bifurcation lesions (6.5% vs 4.9%; HR, 1.31; 95%CI, 0.35-4.88; P=.687) and true bifurcation lesions (17.6% vs 21.7%; HR, 0.76; 95%CI, 0.20-2.83; P=.683).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a LM bifurcation lesion, conservative and aggressive strategies for a provisional SB approach have similar 1-year TLF rates.

Szabo 2-stent technique for coronary bifurcation lesions: procedural and short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Provisional 1-stent technique is currently regarded as the default approach for the majority of bifurcation lesions. Nonetheless, 2-stent techniques may be required for complex bifurcations with high compromise risk or fatal consequences of side branch (SB) occlusion. Limitations exist in current approaches, as stents gap, multiple metal layers and stent malapposition caused by imprecise placement with fluoroscopic guide and intrinsic technical defects. This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of the novel Szabo 2-stent technique for coronary bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

In the Szabo 2-stent technique, one stent is precisely implanted at the SB ostium with Szabo technique resulting in a single strut protruding into the main vessel (MV). After MV rewiring and SB guidewire withdrawal, another stent is implanted in MV followed by proximal optimization technique, SB rewiring, and final kissing inflation (FKI).

RESULTS

The technique tested successfully in silicone tubes (n = 9) with: procedure duration, 31.2 ± 6.8 min; MV and SB rewiring time, 26.8 ± 11.2 s and 33.3 ± 15 s; easy FKI; and 2.3 ± 0.5 balloons/procedure. Bifurcation lesions (n = 22) were treated with angiographic success in MV and SB, respectively: increased minimal lumen diameter (0.63 ± 0.32 mm to 3.20 ± 0.35 mm; 0.49 ± 0.37 mm to 2.67 ± 0.25 mm); low residual stenosis (12.4 ± 2.4%; 12.4 ± 2.3%); and intravascular ultrasound confirmed (n = 19) full coverage; minimal overlap and malapposition; minimal lumen area (2.4 ± 1.2 mm²; 2.1 ± 1.0 mm²); plaque burden (78.1 ± 11.3%; 71.6 ± 15.5%); and minimal stent area (9.1 ± 1.6 mm²; 6.1 ± 1.3 mm²). Periprocedural cardiac troponin increased in 1 asymptomatic patient without electrocardiographic change. There was no target lesion failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The Szabo 2-stent technique for bifurcation lesions provided acceptable safety and efficacy at short-term follow-up.

Impact of Kissing Balloon in Patients Treated With Ultrathin Stents for Left Main Lesions and Bifurcations

Background:

There are limited data regarding the impact of final kissing balloon (FKI) in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention using ultrathin stents in left main or bifurcations.

Methods:

All patients undergoing left main or bifurcations percutaneous coronary intervention enrolled in the RAIN registry (Very Thin Stents for Patients With MAIN or BiF in Real Life: The RAIN, a Multicenter Study) evaluating ultrathin stents were included. Major adverse cardiac event (a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis) was the primary end point, while its components, along with target vessel revascularization, were the secondary end points. The main analysis was performed comparing patients with and without FKI after adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Subgroup analyses were performed according to FKI (short [<3 mm] versus long overlap), strategy (provisional versus 2-stent), routine versus bail-out FKI, and the use of imaging and proximal optimization technique.

Results:

Two thousand seven hundred forty-two patients were included. At 16 months (8–20) follow-up, inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted rates of major adverse cardiac event were similar between FKI and no-FKI group (15.1% versus 15.5%; P =0.967), this result did not change with use of imaging, proximal optimization technique, or routine versus bail-out FKI. In the 2-stent subgroup, FKI was associated with lower rates of target vessel revascularization (7.8% versus 15.9%; P =0.030) and target lesion revascularization (7.3% versus 15.2%; P =0.032). Short overlap FKI was associated with a lower rate of target lesion revascularization compared with no FKI (2.6% versus 5.4%; P =0.034), while long overlap was not (6.8% versus 5.4%; P =0.567).

Conclusions:

In patients with bifurcations or unprotected left main treated with ultrathin stents, short overlap FKI is associated with less restenosis. In a 2-stent strategy, FKI was associated with less target vessel revascularization and restenosis.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03544294.

Toward a sequential provisional coronary bifurcation stenting technique. From kissing balloon to re-POT sequence

The specific anatomy of coronary bifurcations makes them prime sites of atherogenesis and complicates revascularization. Account must be taken of the systematic difference in diameter between the 3 constituent vessels so as to minimize final side-branch ostium obstruction and maintain the law of conservation of flow, while respecting the bifurcation angles. Kissing balloon inflation (KBI) was long recommended, but never clearly demonstrated clinical benefit in single-stent provisional stenting. The detrimental proximal overstretch induced by simultaneous inflation of balloons, observed clinically and confirmed experimentally, probably explains this inefficacy. Advances in knowledge of bifurcation pathophysiology and experimental bench studies gradually led to the development of a new purely sequential technique, re-POT, without balloon juxtaposition, comprising 3 successive steps: (1) initial "proximal optimization technique" (POT), (2) side-branch opening, and (3) final POT. In contrast to KBI, re-POT has been progressively assessed from bench to first clinical study. The aim of the present review is to present the pathophysiological specificities of coronary bifurcations, and some explanations for the failure of KBI which led to the development of a new purely sequential coronary bifurcation provisional stenting strategy, based on re-POT.

Summary of Practice Considerations for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Left Main Bifurcation Disease

Left main bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention is a challenging subset that requires expertise in techniques that are in constant modification. Imaging is important in lesion preparation and optimising outcomes. The interventionalist needs to be highly skilled in the different techniques, as missteps may lead to stent thrombosis and critical in-stent restenosis. Lesion classification between simple and complex identifies those who would best benefit from a two-stent technique. Current technical approaches and practice considerations are summarised in this manuscript.

Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Distal Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

Distal left main (LM) coronary artery bifurcation disease increases percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedural complexity and is associated with worse outcomes than isolated ostial/shaft disease. The optimal treatment strategy for distal LM disease is undetermined. We sought to determine whether outcomes after PCI of LM distal bifurcation lesions are influenced by treatment with a provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent technique, and if so, whether such differences are conditioned by the complexity of the LM bifurcation lesion.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The clinical and angiographic characteristics, procedural methods and outcomes, and clinical events through 3-year follow-up were compared in patients undergoing distal LM PCI with a 1-stent provisional versus planned 2-stent technique in the EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization). Among 529 patients undergoing planned distal LM PCI, 344 (65.0%) and 185 (35.0%) were treated with intended 1-stent provisional and planned 2-stent techniques, respectively. The primary composite end point rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 3 years was significantly lower in patients treated with the provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent method (14.1% versus 20.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.88; P=0.01), driven by differences in cardiovascular death (3.3% versus 8.3%, P=0.01) and myocardial infarction (7.7% versus 12.8%, P=0.06). The 3-year rate of ischemia-driven revascularization of the LM complex was also lower in the provisional group (7.2% versus 16.3%, P=0.001). In 342 patients with distal LM bifurcation disease that did not involve both major side branch vessels, the 3-year primary end point was lower with a provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent technique (13.8% versus 23.3%, P=0.04), whereas no significant difference was present in 182 patients with distal LM bifurcation disease that did involve both side branch vessels (14.3% versus 19.2%, P=0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with distal LM bifurcation disease in the EXCEL trial randomized to PCI, 3-year adverse outcomes were worse with planned 2-stent treatment compared with a provisional 1-stent approach, a difference that was confined to patients without major involvement of both LM side branch vessels.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01205776.

[Hot issues in bifurcation lesions PCI in 2019]

Coronary bifurcations are involved in 15-20% of all percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and remain one of the most challenging lesions in interventional cardiology in terms of procedural success rate as well as long-term cardiac events. The optimal management of bifurcation lesions is still debated but involves careful assessment, planning and a sequential provisional approach. The preferential strategy for PCI of bifurcation lesions remains to use main vessel (MV) stenting with a proximal optimisation technique (POT) and provisional side branch (SB) stenting as a preferred approach. Final kissing balloon inflation is not recommended in all cases. In the minority of lesions where two stents are required, careful deployment and optimal expansion are essential to achieve a long-term result. Intracoronary imaging techniques (IVUS, OCT) and FFR are useful endovascular tools to achieve optimal results.

Two years clinical outcomes with the state-of-the-art PCI for the treatment of bifurcation lesions: A sub-analysis of the SYNTAX II study

BACKGROUND

Bifurcation PCI is associated with a lower rate of procedural success, especially in multivessel disease patients. We aimed to determine the impact of bifurcation treatment on 2-years clinical outcomes when a state-of-the-art PCI strategy (heart team decision-making using the SYNTAX score II, physiology guided coronary stenosis assessment, thin strut bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stent, and intravascular ultrasound guidance) is followed.

METHODS

Three-vessel disease patients enrolled in the SYNTAX II trial (n = 454) were categorized in patients with (a) ≥1 treated bifurcation (n = 126), and (b) without bifurcation (n = 281). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardio and cerebrovascular events (MACCE-a composite of all-cause death, stroke, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization) at 2 years. Secondary endpoints were the occurrence of target lesion failure (TLF) defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and the individual components of the composite primary endpoint, as well as stent thrombosis.

RESULTS

A total of 145 bifurcation were treated in 126 patients. At 2 years, MACCE occurred in 75/407 patients (20.7% for bifurcation versus 17.5% for nonbifurcation, hazard ratio [HR] of 1.28, CI95% 0.78-2.08, p = .32). TLF presented a trend toward higher occurrence in bifurcation (16.8% vs. 10.8%, HR 1.75, CI95% 0.99-3.09, p = .053). Definite stent thrombosis did not differ at 2-year between groups (0.8% for the bifurcation vs. 0.7% for the nonbifurcation, p = .92).

CONCLUSION

Bifurcation treatment in patients with three-vessel disease undergoing state-of-the-art PCI had similar event rate of MACCE but was associated with a trend toward higher incidence of TLF compared with nonbifurcation lesions.

Technical Approaches to Left Main Coronary Intervention: Contemporary Best Practices

Left main percutaneous coronary intervention is an acceptable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting, and in experienced hands, excellent procedural results can be obtained. A systematic approach to stenting and meticulous attention to detail are required. For most lesions, a single-stent provisional approach is sufficient, but for the more complex lesion, a 2-stent technique is required. Herein, the optimal approach to left main lesion assessment and percutaneous intervention is described.

Treatment strategies for coronary bifurcation lesions made easy in the current era by introduction of the BIFURCAID app

Coronary bifurcation lesions account for 15-20% of all percutaneous coronary interventions. Percutaneous revascularization of these lesions is technically challenging and results in lower success rates than nonbifurcation lesions. There are unique procedural considerations and techniques that are employed in the percutaneous revascularization of these lesions. Our objective is to define the procedural complexities of treating coronary bifurcation lesions and describe the leading provisional and dedicated two stent techniques used to optimize procedural and clinical results, as described in the BIFURCAID app.

Modified double-stent strategy may be an optimal choice for coronary bifurcation lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The modified double-stent and provisional stenting strategies have been widely used in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions, but what is the optimization has not been clearly defined. This meta-analysis is to elucidate the benefits from modified double-stent and provisional stenting strategies in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify studies comparing the modified double-stent and provisional stenting strategies in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. The clinical outcomes were divided into early (≤6 months) and late (>6 months) events according to the follow-up duration. The early endpoints included cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization or target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and the late endpoints also include stent thrombosis in addition to the early endpoints index. The angiographic endpoint was in-stent restenosis. Data were analyzed by the statistical software RevMan (version 5.3).

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies involving 1683 patients with coronary bifurcation lesions were included in this meta-analysis, which found that the modified double-stent strategy was associated with a lower risk of cardiac death (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.11-0.78, P = .01), myocardial infarction (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.82, P = .01), target lesion revascularization or target vessel revascularization (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.63, P = .001), and MACE (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.74, P = .003) compared with provisional stenting in the early follow-up endpoint events, while the risk of cardiac death and stent thrombosis were similar between both strategies (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.31-1.10, P = .09; and OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.34-1.15, P = .13; respectively) in the late follow-up endpoint events. There were significant differences between both strategies in myocardial infarction (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.24-0.75, P = .003), MACE (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.62, P < .00001), and target lesion revascularization or target vessel revascularization (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25-0.49, P < .00001) between both strategies in the late follow-up endpoint events. The risk of in-stent restenosis favored the modified double-stent strategy (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.20-0.43, P < .00001).

CONCLUSION

The modified double-stent strategy is associated with excellent clinical and angiographic outcomes except for the occurrence of cardiac death and stent thrombosis late-term outcome compared with provisional stenting strategy in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. These findings suggest that the modified double-stent strategy can be recommended as an optimization in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions.

Application of the MADS classification system in a "mega mammoth" stent trial: Feasibility and preliminary clinical implications

OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND

We attempted to test the feasibility of application of the MADS classification system in the largest stent trial to date and evaluate the preliminary clinical implications of this approach.

METHODS

In the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial, testing two different antiplatelet strategies in patients undergoing PCI with bivalirudin and biolimus-eluting stents, the e-CRF was dedicated to bifurcation treatment according to the MADS classification. Based on this e-CRF, the techniques used for bifurcations treatment in GLOBAL LEADERS were described and compared with two large, all-comer registries of bifurcations treatment (I-BIGIS and COBIS), used as historical controls.

RESULTS

Among 15,991 patients enrolled in the trial, 22,921 lesions treated at the index and staged procedure were available for analysis and 2,757 of these lesions were bifurcations and 7 were trifurcation lesions. The e-CRF-based MADS classification was achieved in 2,757 of these lesions (100%). 80.3% of bifurcations were treated using a single stent, 18.9% using 2 stents and 0.7% using 3 stents. Overall, the "main across side first" approach (A) was used in 77.4% with the "side branch first" approach (S) being the second most frequently used technique (10.2%). A single stent was used in the majority of the "A" approach (87.9%). A reduction in the use of 2-stent techniques (from 33.9 to 18.9%) was observed between GLOBAL LEADERS and I-BIGIS. The "A" approach was the most frequently used technique in GLOBAL LEADERS, while in COBIS the "S" strategy was most frequently employed.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the MADS classification through an e-CRF was feasible in the largest stent trial today and provided useful information about the trends observed overtime in the treatment of bifurcation lesions.

Small side branch compromise related to main vessel stenting: A retrospective cohort study comparing different treatment strategies

Treatment strategies for small side branch compromise related to main vessel stenting are not well investigated and not established.This study is to compare the clinical prognosis of different strategies for bifurcations with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of small side branch after it compromised.A total of 119 consecutive bifurcation subjects from January 2013 to March 2015 were enrolled, all bifurcations were characterized by small side branch (1.5 mm ≤side branch diameter ≤2.5 mm). Subjects were assigned into side branch treatment (SBT) group and nonside branch treatment group (NSBT) according to whether advanced treatment of side branch was taken or not after it compromised. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was evaluated, so were the CCS angina and NYHA heart function classification.SBT subjects were associated with longer procedure time (46.7 vs 19.6 min, P < .001) and more complications (18.9% vs 0.0%, P < .001). 12 MACEs were followed including 4 in SBT group and 8 in NSBT group (10.8% vs 9.8%, P = 1.00). There were no significant difference between 2 groups regarding the CCS and NYHA classification, neither were the calculated classification improvement rate, respectively. In subgroup analysis for true and nontrue bifurcations, no statistical difference was found in terms of the MACE rate, the CCS, and NYHA classification improvement rate.Nontreatment of side branch will not increase the risk of MACE and will not worsen the CCS and NYHA classification when small side branch compromises during the bifurcation PCI.

A randomized trial of bifurcation stenting technique in chronic total occlusions percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy to treat bifurcation lesions (BFLs) in a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusions (CTOs) remains unknown.

AIMS

We sought to assess whether T-provisional or mini-crush is appropriate for BFLs within CTO vessels.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2013, patients who underwent successful CTO guidewire crossing and with a BFL within the CTO target vessel were enrolled prospectively and assigned randomly to either T-provisional stenting or the mini-crush technique for BFL treatment. One-year clinical follow-up was performed. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke.

RESULTS

The prevalence of BFLs was 54.3%. A total of 146 patients with BFLs within CTO vessel were enrolled prospectively and assigned randomly to either T-provisional stenting (N=73) or the mini-crush technique (N=73). Angiographic and clinical success rates were similar in the two groups: 91.8 versus 97.2% (P=0.27) and 91.8 versus 94.5% (P=0.67), respectively.Although T-provisional stenting was associated with a nonsignificantly lower incidence of MACCE in case of BFLs located far from the CTO (9.3 vs. 22.2%; P=0.426), the mini-crush technique resulted in higher MACCE-free survival at 1 year in the presence of BFLs within the CTO body or close to the proximal or the distal cap (89.1 vs. 64.9%; P=0.007).

CONCLUSION

The mini-crush technique appeared to be associated with improved 1-year clinical and angiographic outcomes, particularly when used to treat BFLs located within the CTO body or close to the proximal or the distal cap.

Should kissing balloon inflation after main vessel stenting be routine in the one-stent approach? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

The KBI (kissing balloon inflation) technique is considered the default strategy for the two-stent approach in real world practice. Studies comparing KBI and No-KBI in patients undergoing the one-stent approach have reported conflicting results. The meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the KBI strategy and the No-KBI strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions in the one-stent approach. Five randomized studies were included, and a total of 1264 patients were involved in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was cardiac death. The secondary end points were stent thrombosis, MI (myocardial infarction), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and main vessel and side branch restenosis. Compared with the No-KBI strategy, the KBI strategy was associated with a significant reduction in side branch restenosis (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.30–0.64, p<0.001). A high risk of main vessel restenosis was found in the KBI group (OR: 2.96, 95% CI: 1.74–5.01, p<0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death (OR: 1.89, 95% CI: 0.60–5.95, p = 0.28), stent thrombosis (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.19–4.94, p = 0.98), MI (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.33–1.44, p = 0.30), TLR (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.68–1.90, p = 0.62), or TVR (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.75–2.16, p = 0.38). Compared with the No-KBI strategy, the KBI strategy reduced the incidence of side branch restenosis and increased the risk of main branch restenosis in the one-stent approach. However, the clinical outcomes were similar between the KBI and No-KBI groups.

Left Main Disease: What Is the Correct Approach to Revascularization?

Percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main coronary artery has evolved through registries and meta analyses, supported by results from the EXCEL [Everolimus-Eluting Stents (EES) or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease] and NOBLE (Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis) trials as an acceptable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with low and intermediate Syntax scores. Advances in stenting strategies and the availability of larger diameter drug-eluting stents improve patient safety and optimize procedural and patient outcomes.

Single- Versus 2-Stent Strategies for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials With Long-Term Follow-up

Background

The majority of coronary bifurcation lesions are treated with a provisional single‐stent strategy rather than an up‐front 2‐stent strategy. This approach is supported by multiple randomized controlled clinical trials with short‐ to medium‐term follow‐up; however, long‐term follow‐up data is evolving from many data sets.

Methods and Results

Meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating long‐term outcomes (≥1 year) according to treatment strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions. Nine randomized controlled trials with 3265 patients reported long‐term clinical outcomes at mean weighted follow‐up of 3.1±1.8 years. Provisional single stenting was associated with lower all‐cause mortality (2.94% versus 4.23%; risk ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–1.00; P=0.049; I²=0). There was no difference in major adverse cardiac events (15.8% versus 15.4%; P=0.79), myocardial infarction (4.8% versus 5.5%; P=0.51), target lesion revascularization (9.3% versus 7.6%; P=0.19), or stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.6%; P=0.28) between the groups. Prespecified sensitivity analysis of long‐term mortality at a mean of 4.7 years of follow‐up showed that the provisional single‐stent strategy was associated with reduced all‐cause mortality (3.9% versus 6.2%; risk ratio: 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.97; P=0.036; I²=0).

Conclusions

Coronary bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention using a provisional single‐stent strategy is associated with a reduction in all‐cause mortality at long‐term follow‐up.

Current Interventions for the Left Main Bifurcation

Contemporary clinical trials, registries, and meta-analyses, supported by recent results from the EXCEL (Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) and NOBLE (Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis) trials, have established percutaneous coronary intervention of left main coronary stenosis as a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with low and intermediate SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) scores. As left main percutaneous coronary intervention gains acceptance, it is imperative to increase awareness for patient selection, risk scoring, intracoronary imaging, vessel preparation, and choice of stenting techniques that will optimize procedural and patient outcomes.

Contemporary Approach to Coronary Bifurcation Lesion Treatment

Coronary bifurcations are frequent and account for approximately 20% of all percutaneous coronary interventions. Nonetheless, they remain one of the most challenging lesion subsets in interventional cardiology in terms of a lower procedural success rate and increased rates of long-term adverse cardiac events. Provisional side branch stenting should be the default approach in the majority of cases and we propose easily applicable and reproducible stepwise techniques associated with low risk of failure and complications.

Long-term outcomes of provisional stenting compared with a two-stent strategy for bifurcation lesions: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

The optimal interventional technique for addressing coronary bifurcation lesions is debatable. Long-term clinical outcomes with provisional stenting (PS) compared with a two-stent (TS) strategy for bifurcation lesions are scarce. We aim to perform the first meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to explore long-term outcomes comparing both strategies.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed for online databases until August 2016 for RCTs comparing PS with TS for bifurcation lesions reporting outcomes at 1 year of follow-up or more. Random effects model risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs with a total of 2778 patients reported long-term clinical outcomes. At mean follow-up of 3.0±1.6 years, PS was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; p=0.04) compared with TS for bifurcation lesions. No difference was observed with PS compared with TS regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) or stent thrombosis (ST). In a sensitivity analysis limited to trials with follow-up duration ≥3 years, PS was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR=0.57; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.88; p=0.01), MACE (RR=0.71; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97; p=0.03) and MI (RR=0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; p=0.04) compared with TS, at mean follow-up of 4.6±0.7 years. The risk of TLR and ST remained similar with both strategies (RR=0.81; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.15; p=0.24; and RR=0.75; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.84; p=0.67 respectively). Meta-regression analyses identified increased risk of MACE with PS in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (p=0.05).

CONCLUSION

PS may be associated with a long-term mortality benefit compared with a TS strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions.

Randomized comparison between provisional and routine kissing-balloon technique after main vessel crossover stenting for coronary bifurcation lesions

We compared the myocardial ischemic burden of provisional and routine final kissing-balloon inflation (FKI) with the 1-stent strategy using a second-generation drug-eluting stent for coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL). There are no established guidelines for side branch (SB) intervention after main vessel stenting. In total, 113 CBL patients were randomized to receive different SB intervention strategies: provisional-FKI group (n = 57; FKI only when SB flow was TIMI <3) and routine-FKI group (n = 56; mandatory FKI with aggressive treatment until SB-residual stenosis <50%). Dipyridamole-stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy with ^99mTc was performed after 8 months. The regional summed-difference score (r-SDS) was calculated according to the coronary territory. The primary endpoint included target vessel ischemia (TVI; r-SDS ≥ 2) at 8 months, whereas the clinical primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 3 years. The percent (%) myocardial ischemia (100 × SDS/68) was also calculated. At 8 months, TVI was identified in 11 and 4% in the provisional-FKI and routine-FKI groups, respectively (p = 0.226). SB-binary restenosis (48 vs. 4%, p < 0.001) and myocardial ischemia at the SB territory (11 vs. 0%, p = 0.030) were more common in the provisional-FKI group; however, in TVI patients, % myocardial ischemia (4.12 ± 1.23% vs. 3.68 ± 1.04%; p = 0.677) did not significantly differ. Moderate/severe ischemia (>10% myocardial ischemia) was not observed in the target vessel in either group. Long-term cumulative MACE were similar between the groups (9 vs. 14%; p = 0.358). Provisional-FKI according to TIMI-SB flow grade led to similar and acceptable myocardial ischemia, in comparison with routine-FKI, which may contribute to the identical long-term follow-up.