Bifurcation left main stenting with or without intracoronary imaging: Outcomes from the EBC MAIN trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of intracoronary imaging on outcomes, after provisional versus dual-stenting for bifurcation left main (LM) lesions, is unknown.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effect of intracoronary imaging in the EBC MAIN trial (European Bifurcation Club LM Coronary Stent study).

METHODS: Four hundred and sixty-seven patients were randomized to dual-stenting or a stepwise provisional strategy. Four hundred and fifty-five patients were included. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) was undertaken at the operator's discretion. The primary endpoint was death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization at 1-year.

RESULTS: Intracoronary imaging was undertaken in 179 patients (39%; IVUS = 151, OCT = 28). As a result of IVUS findings, operators reintervened in 42 procedures. The primary outcome did not differ with intracoronary imaging versus angiographic-guidance (17% vs. 16%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-1.63) p = 0.767), nor for reintervention based on IVUS versus none (14% vs. 16%; OR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.32-2.43] p = 0.803), adjusted for syntax score, lesion calcification and ischemic symptoms. With angiographic-guidance, primary outcome events were more frequent with dual versus provisional stenting (21% vs. 10%; adjusted OR: 2.11 [95% CI: 1.04-4.30] p = 0.039). With intracoronary imaging, there were numerically fewer primary outcome events with dual versus provisional stenting (13% vs. 21%; adjusted OR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.22-1.46] p = 0.220).

CONCLUSIONS: In EBC MAIN, the primary outcome did not differ with intracoronary imaging versus none. However, in patients with angiographic-guidance, outcomes were worse with a dual-stent than provisional strategy When intracoronary imaging was used, there was a trend toward better outcomes with the dual-stent than provisional strategy.