Side Branch Occlusion

Similar documents
Why I try to avoid side branch dilatation

Final Kissing Ballooning Returns? The analysis of COBIS II registry

Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction and Clinical Outcome In Bifurcation Lesion

IVUS-Guided d Provisional i Stenting: Plaque or Carina Shift. Soo-Jin Kang, MD., PhD.

Debate Should we use FFR? I will say NO.

Plaque Shift vs. Carina Shift Prevalence and Implication

Integrated Use of IVUS and FFR for LM Stenting

FFR-guided Jailed Side Branch Intervention

ΣΥΜΠΛΟΚΕΣ ΑΓΓΕΙΟΠΛΑΣΤΙΚΕΣ ΑΓΓΕΙΟΠΛΑΣΤΙΚΗ ΔΙΧΑΣΜΩΝ

Percutaneous Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Disease

Effect of Intravascular Ultrasound- Guided vs. Angiography-Guided Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: the IVUS-XPL Randomized Clinical Trial

PCI for Long Coronary Lesion

EBC London 2013 Provisional SB stenting strategy with kissing balloon with Absorb

LM stenting - Cypher

So-Yeon Choi, MD., PhD. Department of Cardiology Ajou University School of Medicine, Korea

6 th European Bifurcation Club October BUDAPEST. Kissing in simple strategy? Why and how I kiss. Y. Louvard, ICPS, Massy France

PROMUS Element Experience In AMC

Non-LM bifurcation studies of importance in 2011

Basics of Angiographic Interpretation Analysis of Angiography

PCI for Left Anterior Descending Artery Ostial Stenosis

FFR vs icecg in Coronary Bifurcations FIESTA ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT

Unprotected LM intervention

Protection of side branch is essential in treating bifurcation lesions: overview

Bifurcation stenting with BVS

Long-term outcomes of simple crossover stenting from the left main to the left anterior descending coronary artery

ISAR-LEFT MAIN: A Randomized Clinical Trial on Drug-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Lesions

Contemporary therapy of bifurcation lesions

FFR vs. icecg in Coronary Bifurcations (FIESTA) - preliminary results. Dobrin Vassilev MD, PhD National Heart Hospital Sofia, Bulgaria

DEB experience in Gachon Universtiy Gil Hospital (in ISR) Soon Yong Suh MD., PhD. Heart Center Gachon University Gil Hospital Seoul, Korea.

Culprit Lesion Remodeling and Long-term (> 5years) Prognosis in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

A Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon for Bifurcation Lesions : Early Clinical Observations

ANGIOPLASY SUMMIT 2007 TCT ASIA PACIFIC. Seoul, Korea: April Session: Left mains & bifurcation intervention

FFR in Left Main Disease

PCI for Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis. Jean Fajadet Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France

September Peter Barlis. Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

STENTYS for Le, Main Sten2ng. Carlo Briguori, MD, PhD Clinica Mediterranea Naples, Italy

Important LM bifurcation studies update

Anatomical, physiological and clinical relevance of a side branch

Technical considerations in the Treatment of Left Main Lesions Ioannis Iakovou, MD, PhD

Complex Coronary Interventions: Bifurcations. John M. Lasala MD PhD Professor of Medicine Washington University St Louis, Missouri

Left main coronary artery (LMCA): The proximal segment

Welcome to the 8 th European Bifurcation Club October Barcelona

Are Asian Patients Different? - Updates Of Biomatrix Experience In Regional Settings: BEACON II (3 Yr F up) &

Post PCI functional testing and imaging: case based lessons from FFR React

Final Clinical and Angiographic Results From a Nationwide Registry of FIREBIRD Sirolimus- Eluting Stent: Firebird In China (FIC) Registry (PI R. Gao)

Left Main and Bifurcation Summit I. Lessons from European LM Studies

Left Main PCI. Integrated Use of IVUS and FFR. Seung-Jung Park, MD, PhD

DESolve NX Trial Clinical and Imaging Results

Complex PCI of an LAD/Diagonal bifurcation lesion (Medina 1,1,1) utilizing the DK Crush technique ".

Lessons learned From The National PCI Registry

Left Main Intervention: Will it become standard of care?

PCI for Chronic Total Occlusions

Le# main treatment with Stentys stent. Carlo Briguori, MD, PhD Clinica Mediterranea Naples, Italy

Abstract Background: Methods: Results: Conclusions:

Declaration of conflict of interest. Nothing to disclose

Between Coronary Angiography and Fractional Flow Reserve

EXCEL vs. NOBLE: How to Treat Left Main Disease in 2017 AATS International Cardiovascular Symposium December 8-9, 2017

Sirolimus- Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for the Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations

Bifurcation Stenting. European Bifurcation Club update. Ioannis Iakovou, MD Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center Athens, Greece

FFR and intravascular imaging, which of which?

DES In-stent Restenosis

The MAIN-COMPARE Study

What is the Optimal Triple Anti-platelet Therapy Duration in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Drug-eluting Stents Implantation?

Intracoronary Imaging For Complex PCI A Pichard, L Satler, Ron Waksman, I Ben-Dor, W Suddath, N Bernardo, D Harrington.

Y. Louvard, ICPS, Massy, France. TCT Asia Pacific 2010

ΑΝΤΙΓΝΩΜΙΕΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΠΕΜΒΑΤΙΚΗ ΚΑΡΔΙΟΛΟΓΙΑ:Νόσος στελέχους Αγγειοπλαστική

Upgrade of Recommendation

Safety of Single- Versus Multi-vessel Angioplasty for Patients with AMI and Multi-vessel CAD

New Double Stent Technique

Bailout technique to rescue the abruptly occluded side branch with collapsed true lumen after main vessel stenting

Perioperative Management After Coronary Stenting: Risk Assessment Before Surgery. Christian Seiler No conflict of interest to declare.

Clinical case in perspective. Cases from Poland

New Insight about FFR and IVUS MLA

Unprotected Left Main Stenting: Patient Selection and Recent Experience. Alaide Chieffo. S. Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy

POLish Bifurcation Optimal treatment Strategy randomized Study (POLBOSS) - Interim analysis

PCI vs. CABG From BARI to Syntax, Is The Game Over?

New Generation Drug- Eluting Stent in Korea

Dr Aniket Puri. OCT guided BVS for LMCA to LAD : Optimising the 'Pot'

When Aspiration Thrombectomy Does Not Work? A A R O N W O N G N A T I O N A L H E A R T C E N T R E S I N G A P O R E

Kurdistan Technique for the Treatment of Unprotected Trifurcation Left Main Stem Coronary Artery Lesion: Case Report

FFR Fundamentals and Measurements

Resolute in Bifurcation Lesions: Data from the RESOLUTE Clinical Program

Functional Assessment of Jailed Side Branches in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Using Fractional Flow Reserve

Chronic Total Occlusions. Stephen Cook, MD Medical Director, Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Oregon Heart & Vascular Institute

IVUS vs FFR Debate: IVUS-Guided PCI

Revascularization after Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation or Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Coronary Disease

The SYNTAX-LE MANS Study

LCX. President / Director of Cardiology / New Tokyo Hospital

PCI for In-Stent Restenosis. CardioVascular Research Foundation

Update from the Tryton IDE study

Left Main Intervention: Where are we in 2015?

Management of Non-protected Left-Main Bifurcation without Drug Eluting Stent. Masahiko Ochiai MD, FACC, FESC, FSCAI

Bifurcation Stenting: IVUS and OCT Information

high SYNTAX Score? I Sheiban Division of Cardiology Interventional Card. University of Turin Turin / Italy

I have nothing to disclose.

DK Crush,Culotte,SKS,T or TAP. Subhash Chandra, MD,DM,FACC Chairman,Cardiac Sciences BLK Super Speciality Hospital, Pusa Road, New Delhi

Technical Aspects and Clinical Indications of FFR

INSIDE INFORMATION YOU CAN T IGNORE

Jose Mª de la Torre Hernandez, MD, PhD, FESC. Cardiologia Valdecilla Hospital Universitario Marques de Valdecilla Santander. SPAIN

Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) --Practical Set Up Pressure Measurement --

Transcription:

Side Branch Occlusion Mechanism, Outcome, and How to avoid it From COBIS II Registry Hyeon-Cheol Gwon Cardiac&Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine

SB occlusion Peri-procedural MI Procedure for SB protection Complex procedure Procedural complications Prolonged procedure Contrast-induced nephropathy MV under-expansion Restenosis Stent thrombosis SB under-treatment Restenosis on SB ostium Bifurcation stenting: It s all about SB compromise

SB occlusion after MV stenting It is common (7-20%). It increases the risk of non-q MI. Risk factors Severity and length of SB ostial stenosis, plaque burden in ostial SB, narrow bifurcation angle, size and/or pressure of MV stent Preventive measures Jailed wire technique, predilation of SB Its clinical outcome Not well-known Blankenship J, JACC 2001, Cho CY, CCI 2001, Aliabadi D, Am J Cardiol 1997,Furukawa E, Circ J 2005, Chaudhry EC, J Thromb Thrombolysis 2007

COBIS II Registry Inclusion criteria Coronary bifurcation lesion in major epicardial artery Excluding RCA-RV bifurcation, branch bifurcation SB RD 2.3 mm and at least stentable with 2.5 mm stent This criteria were 2.0 mm in COBIS registry Treated with DES during the period of 2003. 1 2009. 12. Exclusion criteria Cardiogenic Shock History of CPR in the same hospitalization Important non-exclusion criteria Left main bifurcation (LMB) Patients with AMI, including primary PCI In-stent restenosis

COBIS II Registry COBIS II (N=5,155) 2003. 1 2009. 12. N=2,897 N=2,227 Core lab QCA Exclusion populations Side branch < 2.3mm (n=1276) Trifurcation (n=113) RCA-RV (n=44) LAD-Sepal (n=31) Branch bifurcation (n=23) Non-bifurcation lesion (n=255) No crossover stent (n=197) Not available data (n=319) Exclusion populations SB stenting first strategy (n = 532) Restenotic lesion (n = 107) Preprocedural SB TIMI < 3 (n = 31) SB occlusion after MV stenting (N=187) No SB occlusion after MV stenting (N=2,040) * SB occlusion after MV stenting was defined as TIMI flow <3

Clinical Characteristics * SB occlusion after MV stenting was defined as TIMI flow <3 (N=187, 8.4%) SB occlusion (n=187) No SB occlusion (n=2040) p Value Age (years) 62.0 (54.0-70.0) 63.0 (55-69) 0.84 Male 133 (71.1) 1485 (83.1) 0.62 Hypertension 99 (52.9) 1203 (59.0) 0.11 Diabetes mellitus 42 (22.5) 591 (29.0) 0.06 Dyslipidemia 69 (36.9) 640 (31.4) 0.12 Current smoker 57 (30.5) 527 (25.8) 0.17 Previous myocardial infarction 12 (6.4) 96 (4.7) 0.30 Previous revascularization 24 (12.8) 228 (11.2) 0.49 Clinical presentation 0.001 Stable coronary artery disease 49 (26.2) 788 (38.6) Acute coronary syndromes 138 (73.8) 1252 (61.4) LVEF (%)* 56.0 (47.0-63.0) 60.0 (54.0-65.7) <0.001 Hahn JY, Gwon HC, J Am Coll Cardiol 2013

Angiographic and Procedural Characteristics * SB occlusion after MV stenting was defined as TIMI flow <3 (N=187, 8.4%) SB occlusion (n=187) No SB occlusion (n=2040) p Value Bifurcation location <0.001 Left main bifurcation 14 (7.5) 556 (27.3) LAD/diagonal 124 (66.3) 1124 (55.1) LCX/OM 32 (17.1) 272 (13.3) RCA bifurcation 17 (9.1) 88 (4.3) True bifurcation 139 (74.3) 901 (44.2) <0.001 Jailed wire in the SB 123 (65.8) 1237 (60.6) 0.17 SB predilation before MV stenting 61 (32.6) 437 (21.4) <0.001 IVUS guidance 52 (27.8) 772 (37.8) 0.007 MV stent diameter (mm) 3.0 (3.0-3.5) 3.0 (3.0-3.5) 0.04 MV stent length (mm) 24.0 (20.0-30.0) 24.0 (18.0-30.0) 0.21 MV stent maximal pressure (atm) 12.0 (10.0-14.0) 14.0 (10.0-16.0) <0.001 MV stent to artery ratio 1.2 (1.1-1.3) 1.2 (1.1-1.3) 0.63 Hahn JY, Gwon HC, J Am Coll Cardiol 2013

Independent predictors of SB occlusion * SB occlusion after MV stenting was defined as TIMI flow <3 (N=187, 8.4%) Variables Odds ratio [95% CI] p Value Pre-procedural SB DS 50% 2.34 [1.59-3.43] <0.001 Pre-procedural proximal MV DS 50% 2.34 [1.57-3.50] 0.03 SB lesion length (by 1 mm) 1.03 [1.003-1.06] <0.001 Acute coronary syndrome 1.53 [1.06-2.19] 0.02 Left main lesions (vs. non-left main lesions) 0.34 [0.16-0.72] 0.005 * DS = diameter stenosis, SB = side branch, MV = main vessel Important non-predictors: jailed wire technique, SB predilation, IVUS guidance Hahn JY, Gwon HC, J Am Coll Cardiol 2013

Case The risk of SB compromise in this case? After MV stenting

Plaque shift is the major mechanism of SB ostial functional compromise, but carina shift is not IVUS and FFR for non-lm bifurcation (N=40) Carina shift without plaque shift was not associated with a significant SB FFR Kang SJ, CCI 2013

Plaque shift comes from proximal MV Pre- and post-stenting IVUS for MV and SB (N=44) Carina shift comprises 85% of SB os compromise Distal MV plaque volume decrease (mm 3 ) Proximal MV plaque volume decrease (mm 3 ) Xu J, Gwon HC, Circ CVI 2012

Clinical Impact of SB Occlusion SB occlusion (n=187) No SB occlusion (n=2040) Unadjusted HR (95% CI) p Value Adjusted HR* (95% CI) p Value Death 10 (5.3) 74 (3.6) 1.6 (0.8-3.0) 0.20 1.5 (0.8-3.0) 0.24 Cardiac death 7 (3.7) 20 (1.0) 4.0 (1.7-9.4) 0.002 4.2 (1.7-10.6) 0.002 MI 4 (2.1) 32 (1.6) 1.4 (0.6-4.1) 0.49 1.5 (0.5-4.4) 0.46 Cardiac death or MI 10 (5.3) 50 (2.5) 2.3 (1.2-4.5) 0.02 2.3 (1.2-4.8) 0.02 Stent thrombosis 6 (3.2) 9 (0.4) 7.7 (2.7-21.6) <0.001 6.2 (2.0-19.1) 0.002 TLR 14 (7.5) 129 (6.3) 1.3 (0.73-2.2) 0.41 1.3 (0.7-2.3) 0.36 MACE 23 (12.3) 164 (8.0) 1.6 (1.1-2.5) 0.03 1.62 (1.1-2.6) 0.03 *Adjusted covariates included diabetes, acute coronary syndromes, true bifurcation, left main lesion, use of intravascular ultrasound, SB predilation, MV stent diameter, and MV stent maximal pressure Hahn JY, Gwon HC, J Am Coll Cardiol 2013

Clinical Impact of SB Occlusion Cardiac Death / MI p=0.01 TLR p=0.41 SB occlusion No SB occlusion 187 2040 12 24 36 12 24 36 Months Months 163 1851 128 1542 83 991 SB occlusion No SB occlusion 187 2040 156 1790 121 1478 80 950 Hahn JY, Gwon HC, J Am Coll Cardiol 2013

Fate of Occluded SB MV stenting N=2227 SB patent N=2040 (91.6%) SB occluded N=187 (8.4%) Restored spontaneously N=26 (14%) Occluded, No Tx N=44 (24%) SB ballooning N=88 (47%) SB stenting N=29 (16%) SB occluded SB occluded Persistent occlusion in 58/187 (31%) N=11 (13%) N=3 (10%) SB patent SB patent N=77 (87%) N=26 (90%) Hahn JY, Gwon HC, J Am Coll Cardiol 2013

Fate of persistent SB occlusion SB recovery (n=129) No SB recovery (n=58) Unadjusted HR (95% CI) p Value Death 2 (1.6) 8 (13.8) 9.18 (1.95-43.29) 0.005 Cardiac death 2 (1.6) 5 (8.6) 5.63 (1.09-29.09) 0.04 MI 2 (1.6) 2 (3.4) 2.33 (0.59-4.07) 0.40 Cardiac death or MI 4 (3.1) 6 (10.3) 3.47 (0.98-12.31) 0.054 Stent thrombosis* 4 (3.1) 2 (3.4) 1.18 (0.22-6.42) 0.85 TLR 11 (8.5) 3 (5.2) 0.62 (0.17-2.23) 0.47 MACE 14 (10.9) 9 (15.5) 1.48 (0.64-3.41) 0.36 Hahn JY, Gwon HC, J Am Coll Cardiol 2013

Predictors of SB recovery SB recovery (n=129) No SB recovery (n=58) p Value Bifurcation location 0.65 Left main bifurcation 9 (7.0) 5 (8.6) LAD/diagonal 84 (65.1) 40 (69.0) LCX/OM 25 (19.4) 7 (12.1) RCA bifurcation 11 (8.5) 6 (10.3) True bifurcation 94 (72.9) 45 (77.6) 0.49 Jailed wire in the SB 92 (71.3) 31 (53.4) 0.02 SB predilation before MV stenting 45 (34.9) 16 (27.6) 0.33 Guidance of intravascular ultrasound 39 (30.2) 13 (22.4) 0.27 MV stent diameter (mm) 3.0 (3.0-3.5) 3.0 (2.9-3.5) 0.62 MV stent length (mm) 24.0 (20.0-30.0) 24.0 (20.0-32.0) 0.91 MV stent maximal pressure (atm) 12.0 (10.0-15.5) 12.0 (10.0-14.0) 0.57 MV stent to artery ratio 1.2 (1.1-1.3) 1.2 (1.1-1.4) 0.25 Hahn JY, Gwon HC, J Am Coll Cardiol 2013

Summary and Conclusions In COBIS II registry, the pre-procedural stenosis and lesion length of the SB, proximal MV stenosis, and clinical presentation were found to be predictive of SB occlusion after MV stenting. The occlusion of sizable SB was associated with adverse outcome. Jailed wire technique may be helpful to reopen the occluded side branches.

End of Presentation

SB ostial stenosis after MV stenting is not functionally so significant than it looks. FFR = P d P a Koo BK, J Am Coll Cardiol 2005

Carina shift is the major mechanism of SB ostial anatomical compromise Pre- and post-stenting IVUS for MV and SB (N=44) Carina shift comprises 85% of SB os compromise Carina shift (mm 3 ) Plaque shift (mm 3 ) Xu J, Gwon HC, Circ CVI 2012

Whole Story of SB Compromise? Plaque shift vs. Carina shift, Morphological SB ostial stenosis after MV stenting is not functionally so significant than it looks (Koo BK), because it is mostly due to carina shift (Xu J), which is not the major cause of functional compromise (Kang SJ). Plaque shift comes mostly from the proximal MV (Xu J), which explains the plaque burden of proximal MV is the significant predictor of SB occlusion after MV stenting (Hahn JY).