To Örebro University

oru.seÖrebro University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Randomised comparison of provisional side branch stenting versus a two-stent strategy for treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch: the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study IV
Department of Cardiology, Latvia Center of Cardiology, Paul Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia.
Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Cardiology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Research Institute of Cardiology and Regenerative Medicine, Latvia Centre of Cardiology, Riga, Latvia.
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Open heart, E-ISSN 2053-3624, Vol. 7, no 1, article id e000947Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: It is still uncertain whether coronary bifurcations with lesions involving a large side branch (SB) should be treated by stenting the main vessel and provisional stenting of the SB (simple) or by routine two-stent techniques (complex). We aimed to compare clinical outcome after treatment of lesions in large bifurcations by simple or complex stent implantation.

Methods: The study was a randomised, superiority trial. Enrolment required a SB >= 2.75 mm, >= 50% diameter stenosis in both vessels, and allowed SB lesion length up to 15 mm. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-procedural myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation at 6 months. Two-year clinical follow-up was included in this primary reporting due to lower than expected event rates.

Results: A total of 450 patients were assigned to simple stenting (n = 221) or complex stenting (n=229) in 14 Nordic and Baltic centres. Two-year follow-up was available in 218 (98.6%) and 228 (99.5%) patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months was 5.5% vs 2.2% (risk differences 3.2%, 95% CI -0.2 to 6.8, p=0.07) and at 2 years 12.9% vs 8.4% (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13, p = 0.12) after simple versus complex treatment. In the subgroup treated by newer generation drug-eluting stents, MACE was 12.0% vs 5.6% (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.17, p = 0.10) after simple versus complex treatment.

Conclusion: In the treatment of bifurcation lesions involving a large SB with ostial stenosis, routine two-stent techniques did not improve outcome significantly compared with treatment by the simpler main vessel stenting technique after 2 years.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2020. Vol. 7, no 1, article id e000947
National Category
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-81576DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000947ISI: 000527748100006PubMedID: 32076558Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85078475367OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-81576DiVA, id: diva2:1428718
Note

Funding Agency:

Cordis Corp

Available from: 2020-05-06 Created: 2020-05-06 Last updated: 2021-01-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Fröbert, OleCalais, Fredrik

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Fröbert, OleCalais, Fredrik
By organisation
School of Medical SciencesÖrebro University Hospital
In the same journal
Open heart
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 19 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf