JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Treatment Strategy for STEMI With Bifurcation Culprit Lesion Undergoing Primary PCI: The COBIS II Registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There are limited data on the preferred treatment strategy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with bifurcation lesions. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between 1-stent and 2-stent strategies in STEMI patients with bifurcation lesions undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS: The COronary BIfurcation Stenting II is a retrospective multicenter registry of 2897 consecutive patients with bifurcation lesions undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents from January 2003 through December 2009. Among the registered population, 367 (12.7%) patients had STEMI; of these, a 1-stent strategy was used in 304 patients and a 2-stent strategy in 63 patients; 77.1% of the patients received primary PCI with a first-generation drug-eluting stent. The inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting method was used to adjust for confounding factors. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis.

RESULTS: The median length of follow-up was 38 months. Postprocedural side branch diameter stenosis differed significantly between the 2 groups (1-stent vs 2-stent, 42.7% vs 9.7%; P < .001). After the performance of inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting methods, the rate of MACE was significantly higher in the 2-stent group than in the 1-stent group (HR, 1.85; 95%CI, 1.19-2.87; P = .006), mainly driven by target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients with bifurcation culprit lesions undergoing primary PCI, the 2-stent strategy had significantly higher rates of MACE than the 1-stent strategy, despite successful treatment of the side branch. However, this result should be interpreted with caution because this study does not reflect current practice.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app