Impact of atrial fibrillation on long-term outcomes in patients with coronary artery bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

<p><strong>Background.</strong> Atrial fibrillation is one of the most common types of cardiac arrhythmias. The frequent combination of atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease in clinical practice can be attributed to common risk factors and relationships among pathogenetic mechanisms.</p><p><strong>Aim. </strong>This study aims to evaluate the impact of atrial fibrillation on immediate and long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods.</strong> This study included 709 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation lesions. All patients were divided into two groups: those with and without atrial fibrillation.</p><p><strong>Results.</strong> This multicentre registry showed that the incidence of atrial fibrillation was 11.7%. Compared to patients without a history of atrial fibrillation, those that did were older (66.8 ± 8.5 vs. 62.9 ± 9.0 years, p = 0.0002) and more often had cerebrovascular (22.9% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.003) and peripheral artery disease (18.1% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.002). The overall incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at the hospital stage was 1.8%. The average follow-up duration was 476 ± 94 days. No difference in long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (15.0% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.6) was observed between patients with and without atrial fibrillation. Patients with atrial fibrillation were more likely to have adverse events, such as bleeding (13.8% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.22), stroke (2.5% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.23) and myocardial infarction (7.6% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.28), although differences between the groups were insignificant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion.</strong> Atrial fibrillation was not associated with mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation lesions.</p><p><strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: </strong>NCT03450577</p><p>Received 4 August 2021. Revised 27 September 2021. Accepted 28 September 2021.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>The study did not have sponsorship.</p><p><strong>Conflict of interest:</strong> Authors declare no conflict of interest.</p><p><strong>Contribution of the authors<br /> </strong>Conception and study design: D.A. Khelimskii, O.V. Krestyaninov, A.G. Badoian, A.A. Baranov, R.B. Utegenov, I.S. Bessonov, S.S. Sapozhnikov<br /> Data collection and analysis: D.A. Khelimskii, A.G. Badoian, A.A. Baranov, R.B. Utegenov, I.S. Bessonov, S.S. Sapozhnikov<br /> Statistical analysis: D.A. Khelimskii, A.G. Badoian, I.S. Bessonov<br /> Drafting the article: D.A. Khelimskii, O.V. Krestyaninov, A.G. Badoian, A.A. Baranov, R.B. Utegenov, I.S. Bessonov, S.S. Sapozhnikov<br /> Critical revision of the article: D.A. Khelimskii, O.V. Krestyaninov, A.G. Badoian, A.A. Baranov, R.B. Utegenov, I.S. Bessonov, S.S. Sapozhnikov<br /> Final approval of the version to be published: D.A. Khelimskii, O.V. Krestyaninov, A.G. Badoian, A.A. Baranov, R.B. Utegenov, I.S. Bessonov, S.S. Sapozhnikov</p>

Randomized non-inferiority TrIal comParing reverse T And Protrusion versus double-kissing and crush Stenting for the treatment of complex left main bifurcation lesions

Background The treatment of left main bifurcation stenoses remains challenging. Aims We compare the “Reverse T and Protrusion” (reverse-TAP) technique to Double-Kissing and crush (DK-crush). Methods The study was designed as non-inferiority trial, the primary endpoint was percentage stent expansion in the ostial side branch at optical coherence tomography. Results 52 consecutive patients (13 females, 17 diabetics, Syntax score 25 [22–29]) with complex coronary bifurcation lesions of the left main were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to Reverse-TAP or DK-crush stenting. The intervention was performed according to protocol in all patients in both randomization groups. Side branch stent expansion was 75 [67–90]% in the DK-crush group and 86 [75–95]% in the reverse-TAP group (one-sided 97.5% lower parametric confidence interval: − 0.28%; P < 0.01 for non-inferiority; P = 0.037 for superiority). Side branch balloon pressure during final kissing was higher in the DK-crush group (14 [12–16] vs. reverse-TAP: 13 [12–14]; P = 0.043). Procedural time was shorter with reverse-TAP (DK-crush: 32 [24–44] min vs reverse–TAP: 25 [22–33] min; P = 0.044). Other procedural parameters were not different between groups. There was no difference in any of the safety endpoints up to 1 month. Conclusions A reverse-TAP strategy for the interventional treatment of complex coronary lesions was non-inferior and superior to DK-crush for the primary endpoint side branch expansion while requiring less time. A larger study testing long-term clinical outcomes is warranted. Trail Registration NCT: NCT03714750. Graphical abstract

Comparative analysis of sequential pot-side-pot and kissing balloon techniques in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with single stent strategy: propensity score analysis

Objectives It is unknown whether the novel re-POT technique is more effective than commonly preferred kissing balloon inflation (KBI) in patients with non-complex coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL) treated with single-stent strategy. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of re-POT and KBI techniques in one-stent strategy of non-complex CBL. Methods 283 patients were retrospectively analyzed (re-POT group, n=149; KBI group, n=134). Primary end-points of the study were defined as; in-hospital and 30-day mortality, contrast induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI), stent thrombosis (ST), side branch (SB) dissection and need for SB stenting. Characteristics of patients at baseline were balanced by using propensity score inverse probability weighting (IPW). Results Procedure time (minute, 30.6±8.5 vs 34.3±11.6; p=0.003) and contrast volume (mL, 153.7±42.4 vs 171.1±58.2; p=0.004) were significantly lower in re-POT group. Besides, SB residual stenosis and number of patients with &gt;50% SB residual stenosis remained significantly higher in re-POT group both in general and true bifurcation subgroup analysis (20.3±19.8% vs 16.5±16.4%, p=0.02; 11.9% vs 5.7%, p=0.01 and 24.1±23.2% vs 18.8±18.7%, p=0.03; 17.6% vs 6.6%, p=0.005; respectively). Combined clinical adverse outcomes were similar between groups. (Figure 1) SB dissection (10.2% vs 20.1%, p=0.001) and need for SB stenting (12.6% vs 19%, p=0.04) were reached statistically significance in KBI group after adjustment. (Figure 2) Conclusions Re-POT may be a simple and safe technique with a shorter procedure time and lower incidence of adverse events in non-complex CBL treated with single-stent strategy. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Adverse clinical outcomes; weighted

Double kissing – crush technique to treat coronary bifurcation lesions: analysis of success rate, procedural times and device usage

Background The Double Kissing Crush (“DK Crush”) technique is one of the recommended planned 2-stent techniques to treat true coronary bifurcation lesions (Medina 1–1-1, Medina 0–1-1). While some trials demonstrated superiority to other techniques, DK Crush requires a sequence of specific and potentially technically challenging steps. No data exists on the procedural difficulty of the various steps required for DK Crush. We therefore analyzed procedural times and device usage in a systematic fashion. Methods and results 54 patients (42 male, mean age 67±12 years) intended for treatment with DK Crush were enrolled. Detailed procedural characteristics including exact times and device usage for each step of DK Crush were prospectively measured and analyzed. DK Crush was successful in 48/54 patients (89%). In two patients stenting technique was changed to T- or TAP-stenting due to anatomical reasons at the moment of positioning of the SB stent. In one patient no balloon could cross the lesion and in another the procedure had to be modified due to coronary perforation directly after pre-dilatation. True failure of DK Crush was observed in two cases: In one case, the first rewiring of the SB, in the other, placement of a balloon for first kissing balloon (KB) maneuver in the SB was not possible. These 6 patients were excluded from further analysis. Median times for each step were: 1:21min (IQR 0:52min-1:50min) for wiring SB, 1:18min (IQR 0:47min-1:42min) for wiring MV, 1:30min (IQR 0:54min-2:15min) for stent placement in the SB, 0:40min (IQR 0:29min-1:21min) for balloon placement in the MV. First rewiring of the SB after SB stent crush required 1:30min (IQR 0:37min-2:05min), 1st KB placement in the SB took 1:42min (IQR 1:00min-3:13min) and 1st KB placement in the MV required 0:45min (IQR 0:27min-1:19min). Stent placement in the MV required 1:34min (IQR 1:09min-2:40min) and 2nd rewiring of the SB 1:21min (IQR 0:55min-2:04min), 2nd KB placement of the SB 2:08min (IQR 1:01min-3:36min) and 2nd KB placement of the MV 0:50min (IQR 0:34min-1:01min). Final POT was performed in all cases. Median total procedure time was 52:35 min (IQR 00:42:54h-1:01:37h). Additional devices were needed in 10% (3x1, 2x2 balloons) for stent placement in the SB; in 46% (20x1, 1x4 wires) for the first rewiring of the SB and in 49% (20x1, 3x2 balloons) for 1st KB placement in the SB. The 2nd rewiring of the SB required additional wires in 32% (13x1, 2x2 wires) and 54% of the patients required additional balloons for the 2nd KB placement in the SB (20x1, 2x2, 1x3, 2x5 balloons). Final TIMI flow was III in 97.9%. Complications occurred in 6% (n=3), each showing coronary dissection with TIMI III flow in 2 patients and TIMI I flow in 1 patient after placement of additional stents. Conclusion DKMC has a high success rate but is a time-consuming and material-intensive technique. The placement of the 2nd KB in the SB requires most of the procedural time and resources. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.