Bifurcation lesion morphology and intravascular ultrasound assessment

  • Ricardo A. Costa
  • Marco A. Costa
  • Issam D. Moussa
Original Paper


This repot reviews the angiographic and intravascular (IVUS) assessment of coronary bifurcation lesions. Overall, bifurcation lesion anatomy and morphology is critical for technical decision making, and a key factor for successful bifurcation PCI. Optimal viewing is essential for proper angiographic assessment, especially for evaluation of the degree of SB involvement. Current classifications based on the presence or absence of significant angiographic stenosis within the three segments of the bifurcation anatomy may not provide sufficient anatomic and morphologic information to guide technical decision making. Dedicated 2D bifurcation quantitative coronary angiography with segmental analysis of the bifurcation provides greater accuracy for quantification of the degree of stenosis in the PV and especially the SB ostium. IVUS assessment at preprocedure provides valuable information regarding vessel size, and plaque morphology and distribution (particularly in relation to the SB ostium) that may help select treatment strategy. At postprocedure, IVUS imaging evaluates stent apposition within the stented segment(s) and the appropriateness of stent expansion particularly at the SB ostium, what may impact long-term outcomes.


Bifurcation Angiography Intravascular ultrasound Morphology 


Conflict of interest

The authors would like to state that they have no conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript and submission.


  1. 1.
    Latib A, Colombo A (2008) Bifurcation disease: what do we know, what should we do? JACC Cardiovasc Interv 1(3):218–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Costa RA, Moussa ID (2006) Percutaneous treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions in the era of drug-eluting stents. Minerva Cardioangiol 54(5):577–589PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Steigen TK, Maeng M, Wiseth R, Erglis A, Kumsars I, Narbute I et al (2006) Randomized study on simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: the Nordic bifurcation study. Circulation 114(18):1955–1961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferenc M, Gick M, Kienzle RP, Bestehorn HP, Werner KD, Comberg T et al (2008) Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. Eur Heart J 29(23):2859–2867PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hildick-Smith D, de Belder AJ, Cooter N, Curzen NP, Clayton TC, Oldroyd KG et al (2010) Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions. The British bifurcation coronary study: old, new, and evolving strategies. Circulation 121:1235–1243Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Routledge HC, Morice MC, Lefevre T, Garot P, De Marco F, Vaquerizo B et al (2008) 2-year outcome of patients treated for bifurcation coronary disease with provisional side branch T-stenting using drug-eluting stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 1(4):358–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colombo A, Bramucci E, Sacca S, Violini R, Lettieri C, Zanini R et al (2009) Randomized study of the crush technique versus provisional side-branch stenting in true coronary bifurcations: the CACTUS (coronary bifurcations: application of the crushing technique using sirolimus-eluting stents) Study. Circulation 119(1):71–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Latib A, Cosgrave J, Godino C, Qasim A, Corbett SJ, Tavano D et al (2008) Sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary bifurcations. Am Heart J 156(4):745–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moussa I, Colombo A (2010) Coronary artery bifurcation interventions: bridging the gap between research and practice. In: Moussa I, Colombo A (eds) Tips and tricks in interventional therapy of coronary bifurcation lesions. Informa Healthcare, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costa RA, Kyono H, Costa M, Russell M, Moussa ID (2010) Coronary artery bifurcation lesions: anatomy. In: Moussa ID, Colombo A (eds) Tips and tricks in interventional therapy of coronary bifurcation lesions, 1st edn. Informa Healthcare, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Medina A, Suarez de Lezo J, Pan M (2006) A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesions. Rev Esp Cardiol 59(2):183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Costa RA, Furuichi S, Lansky AJ, Mintz GS, Montorfano M, Carlino M et al (2008) Midterm clinical outcomes from the intravascular ultrasound investigation of the parent vessel and the side branch in coronary bifurcation lesions treated with different stenting techniques. J Am Coll Cardiol 51:B51Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Latib A, Moussa I, Sheiban I, Colombo A (2011) When are two stents needed? Which technique is the best? How to perform? EuroIntervention 6(Suppl J):J81–J87Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hildick-Smith D, Lassen JF, Albiero R, Lefevre T, Darremont O, Pan M et al (2010) Consensus from the 5th European bifurcation club meeting. EuroIntervention 6(1):34–38Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pan M, de Lezo JS, Medina A, Romero M, Segura J, Pavlovic D et al (2004) Rapamycin-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcated coronary lesions: a randomized comparison of a simple versus complex strategy. Am Heart J 148(5):857–864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pan M, Suarez de Lezo J, Medina A, Romero M, Delgado A, Delgado A, Segura J et al (2007) Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcation lesions: a randomized comparison between paclitaxel and sirolimus stents. Am Heart J 153(1):15e1–15e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoye A, Iakovou I, Ge L, van Mieghem CA, Ong AT, Cosgrave J et al (2006) Long-term outcomes after stenting of bifurcation lesions with the “crush” technique: predictors of an adverse outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 47(10):1949–1958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thuesen L, Kelbaek H, Klovgaard L, Helqvist S, Jorgensen E, Aljabbari S et al (2006) Comparison of sirolimus-eluting and bare metal stents in coronary bifurcation lesions: subgroup analysis of the Stenting Coronary Arteries in Non-Stress/Benestent Disease Trial (SCANDSTENT). Am Heart J 152(6):1140–1145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Colombo A, Moses JW, Morice MC, Ludwig J, Holmes DR Jr, Spanos V et al (2004) Randomized study to evaluate sirolimus-eluting stents implanted at coronary bifurcation lesions. Circulation 109(10):1244–1249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tanabe K, Hoye A, Lemos PA, Aoki J, Arampatzis CA, Saia F et al (2004) Restenosis rates following bifurcation stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents for de novo narrowings. Am J Cardiol 94(1):115–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chaudhry EC, Dauerman KP, Sarnoski CL, Thomas CS, Dauerman HL (2007) Percutaneous coronary intervention for major bifurcation lesions using the simple approach: risk of myocardial infarction. J Thromb Thrombolysis 24(1):7–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arora RR, Raymond RE, Dimas AP, Bhadwar K, Simpfendorfer C (1989) Side branch occlusion during coronary angioplasty: incidence, angiographic characteristics, and outcome. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 18(4):210–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, Morice MC, Colombo A, Dawkins K et al (2005) The SYNTAX score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention 1(2):219–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koo BK, Park KW, Kang HJ, Cho YS, Chung WY, Youn TJ et al (2008) Physiological evaluation of the provisional side-branch intervention strategy for bifurcation lesions using fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J 29(6):726–732PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Furukawa E, Hibi K, Kosuge M, Nakatogawa T, Toda N, Takamura T et al (2005) Intravascular ultrasound predictors of side branch occlusion in bifurcation lesions after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ J 69(3):325–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lansky A, Tuinenburg J, Costa M, Maeng M, Koning G, Popma J et al (2009) Quantitative angiographic methods for bifurcation lesions: a consensus statement from the European Bifurcation Group. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 73(2):258–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ellis SG, Vandormael MG, Cowley MJ, DiSciascio G, Deligonul U, Topol EJ et al (1990) Coronary morphologic and clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multivessel coronary disease. Implications for patient selection. Multivessel angioplasty prognosis study group. Circulation 82(4):1193–1202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burzotta F, De Vita M, Sgueglia G, Todaro D, Trani C (2011) How to solve difficult side branch access? EuroIntervention 6(Supplement J):J72–J80Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lefevre T, Louvard Y, Morice MC, Dumas P, Loubeyre C, Benslimane A et al (2000) Stenting of bifurcation lesions: classification, treatments, and results. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 49(3):274–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van der Waal EC, Mintz GS, Garcia-Garcia HM, Bui AB, Pehlivanova M, Girasis C et al (2009) Intravascular ultrasound and 3D angle measurements of coronary bifurcations. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 73(7):910–916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Medina A, Martin P, Suarez de Lezo J, Novoa J, Melian F, Hernandez E et al (2011) Ultrasound study of the prevalence of plaque at the carina in lesions that affect the coronary bifurcation. Implications for treatment with provisional stent. Rev Esp Cardiol 64(1):43–50Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Costa RA, Mintz GS, Carlier SG, Lansky AJ, Moussa I, Fujii K et al (2005) Bifurcation coronary lesions treated with the “crush” technique: an intravascular ultrasound analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 46(4):599–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Costa RA, Mintz GS, Carlier SG, Fujii K, Takebayashi H, Takenori Y et al (2005) Impact of final lumen dimensions on restenosis after crush drug-eluting stent implantation for bifurcation lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:3AGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hahn JY, Song YB, Lee SY, Choi JH, Choi SH, Kim DK et al (2009) Serial intravascular ultrasound analysis of the main and side branches in bifurcation lesions treated with the T-stenting technique. J Am Coll Cardiol 54(2):110–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sonoda S, Morino Y, Ako J, Terashima M, Hassan AH, Bonneau HN et al (2004) Impact of final stent dimensions on long-term results following sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: serial intravascular ultrasound analysis from the sirius trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 43(11):1959–1963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sano K, Mintz GS, Carlier SG, Solinas E, Costa JR Jr, Qian J, Missel E, Shan S, Franklin-Bond T, Boland P, Weisz G, Moussa I, Dangas G, Mehran R, Lansky AJ, Kreps E, Collins M, Stone GW, Moses JW, Leon MB (2007) Treatment of restenotic drug-eluting stents: an intravascular ultrasound analysis. J Invasive Cardiol 19(11):464–468Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Colombo A, Stankovic G, Orlic D, Corvaja N, Liistro F, Airoldi F et al (2003) Modified T-stenting technique with crushing for bifurcation lesions: immediate results and 30-day outcome. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 60(2):145–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mintz GS, Weissman NJ (2006) Intravascular ultrasound in the drug-eluting stent era. J Am Coll Cardiol 48(3):421–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricardo A. Costa
    • 1
  • Marco A. Costa
    • 2
  • Issam D. Moussa
    • 3
  1. 1.Instituto Dante Pazzanese de CardiologiaSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Harrington-McLaughlin Heart and Vascular Institute, University HospitalsCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Texas Cardiac & Vascular InstituteSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations