Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions

  • Marco Spaziano
  • Yves Louvard
  • Thierry LefèvreEmail author


The optimal treatment for coronary bifurcation lesions is still the subject of debate. Balloon angioplasty for this type of lesion used to be associated with significant risk of acute complications compounded by a high risk of recurrent stenosis. With the advent of bare-metal stents, the first controversies arose as to whether one or several stents should be used to treat these lesions. The outcome of various nonrandomized studies demonstrated the benefit of implementing a single-stent strategy, whereby a stent is implanted in the main branch across the side branch. Drug-eluting stents allowed considerable reduction in the risk of restenosis and repeat interventions while encouraging the development of numerous complex techniques permitting complete bifurcation coverage. However, the results of large randomized studies, for which 5-year data is now available, confirmed the absence of benefits for complex strategies compared with provisional side-branch stenting, when both approaches are possible. Today, the provisional side branch stenting approach is considered the gold standard. This chapter explains when and how to perform this technique and how to resolve common difficulties. It also describes when and how to use a two-stent approach.


  1. 1.
    Latib A, Colombo A. Bifurcation disease: what do we know, what should we do? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1:218–26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gao XF, Zhang YJ, Tian NL, et al. Stenting strategy for coronary artery bifurcation with drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials and systematic review. EuroIntervention. 2014;10:561–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kassab GS. Functional hierarchy of coronary circulation: direct evidence of a structure-function relation. Am J Phys Heart Circ Phys. 2005;289:H2559–65.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kassab GS, Bhatt DL, Lefevre T, Louvard Y. Relation of angiographic side branch calibre to myocardial mass: a proof of concept myocardial infarct index. EuroIntervention. 2013;8:1461–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kassab GS, Finet G. Anatomy and function relation in the coronary tree: from bifurcations to myocardial flow and mass. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(Suppl V):V13–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kamiya A, Takahashi T. Quantitative assessments of morphological and functional properties of biological trees based on their fractal nature. J Appl Physiol. 2007;102:2315–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murray CD. The physiological principle of minimum work: I. The vascular system and the cost of blood volume. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1926;12:207–14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murray CD. The physiological principle of minimum work applied to the angle of branching of arteries. J Gen Physiol. 1926;9:835–41.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huo Y, Kassab GS. A scaling law of vascular volume. Biophys J. 2009;96:347–53.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finet G, Gilard M, Perrenot B, et al. Fractal geometry of arterial coronary bifurcations: a quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound analysis. EuroIntervention. 2008;3:490–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choy JS, Kassab GS. Scaling of myocardial mass to flow and morphometry of coronary arteries. J Appl Physiol. 2008;104:1281–s6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asakura T, Karino T. Flow patterns and spatial distribution of atherosclerotic lesions in human coronary arteries. Circ Res. 1990;66:1045–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chatzizisis YS, Jonas M, Coskun AU, et al. Prediction of the localization of high-risk coronary atherosclerotic plaques on the basis of low endothelial shear stress: an intravascular ultrasound and histopathology natural history study. Circulation. 2008;117:993–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joner M, Finn AV, Farb A, et al. Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:193–202.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shimada Y, Courtney BK, Nakamura M, et al. Intravascular ultrasonic analysis of atherosclerotic vessel remodeling and plaque distribution of stenotic left anterior descending coronary arterial bifurcation lesions upstream and downstream of the side branch. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:193–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Giessen AG, Wentzel JJ, Meijboom WB, et al. Plaque and shear stress distribution in human coronary bifurcations: a multislice computed tomography study. EuroIntervention. 2009;4:654–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Medina A, Martin P. Suarez de Lezo J et al. 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. 2011;64:43–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nakazawa G, Yazdani SK, Finn AV, Vorpahl M, Kolodgie FD, Virmani R. Pathological findings at bifurcation lesions: the impact of flow distribution on atherosclerosis and arterial healing after stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1679–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spaziano M, Theriault-Lauzier P, Meti N, et al. Optimal fluoroscopic viewing angles of left-sided heart structures in patients with aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation based on multislice computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016;10:162–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahmed JM, Mintz GS, Weissman NJ, et al. Mechanism of lumen enlargement during intracoronary stent implantation: an intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 2000;102:7–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koo BK, Waseda K, Kang HJ, et al. Anatomic and functional evaluation of bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:113–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saucedo JF, Mehran R, Dangas G, et al. Long-term clinical events following creatine kinase--myocardial band isoenzyme elevation after successful coronary stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:1134–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bhargava B, Waksman R, Lansky AJ, Kornowski R, Mehran R, Leon MB. Clinical outcomes of compromised side branch (stent jail) after coronary stenting with the NIR stent. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001;54:295–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Louvard Y, Thomas M, Dzavik V, et al. Classification of coronary artery bifurcation lesions and treatments: time for a consensus! Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;71:175–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koller P, Safian R. Bifurcation stenosis in manual of interventional cardiology. Birmingham: Physician’s Press; 1996. p. 229–41.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spokojny A, Sanborn T. The bifurcation lesion. In: Wilkins WA, editor. Strategic approaches in coronary intervention, vol. 288. Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lefevre T, Louvard Y, Morice MC, et al. Stenting of bifurcation lesions: classification, treatments, and results. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000;49:274–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoye A, van Mieghem CA, Ong AT, et al. Treatment of de novo bifurcation lesions: comparison of Sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. EuroIntervention. 2005;1:24–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Medina A, Suarez de Lezo J, Pan M. A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesions. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2006;59:183.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Movahed MR, Stinis CT. A new proposed simplified classification of coronary artery bifurcation lesions and bifurcation interventional techniques. J Invasive Cardiol. 2006;18:199–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Topol E, Teirstein P. Textbook of interventional cardiology. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2016.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lansky A, Tuinenburg J, Costa M, et al. Quantitative angiographic methods for bifurcation lesions: a consensus statement from the European bifurcation group. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;73:258–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grundeken MJ, Ishibashi Y, Ramcharitar S, et al. The need for dedicated bifurcation quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) software algorithms to evaluate bifurcation lesions. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(Suppl V):V44–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Andriotis A, Zifan A, Gavaises M, et al. A new method of three-dimensional coronary artery reconstruction from X-ray angiography: validation against a virtual phantom and multislice computed tomography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;71:28–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pflederer T, Ludwig J, Ropers D, Daniel WG, Achenbach S. Measurement of coronary artery bifurcation angles by multidetector computed tomography. Investig Radiol. 2006;41:793–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Girasis C, Farooq V, Diletti R, et al. Impact of 3-dimensional bifurcation angle on 5-year outcome of patients after percutaneous coronary intervention for left main coronary artery disease: a substudy of the SYNTAX trial (synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:1250–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Muramatsu T, Grundeken MJ, Ishibashi Y, et al. Comparison between two- and three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography bifurcation analyses for the assessment of bifurcation lesions: a subanalysis of the TRYTON pivotal IDE coronary bifurcation trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:E140–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sarno G, Garg S, Onuma Y, et al. Bifurcation lesions: functional assessment by fractional flow reserve vs. anatomical assessment using conventional and dedicated bifurcation quantitative coronary angiogram. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76:817–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang YJ, Zhu H, Shi SY, et al. Comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography for the prediction of functional severity in true bifurcation lesions: insights from the randomized DK-CRUSH II, III, and IV trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87(Suppl 1):589–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Koo BK, Kang HJ, Youn TJ, et al. Physiologic assessment of jailed side branch lesions using fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:633–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Goktekin O, Kaplan S, Dimopoulos K, et al. A new quantitative analysis system for the evaluation of coronary bifurcation lesions: comparison with current conventional methods. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;69:172–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ramcharitar S, Onuma Y, Aben JP, et al. A novel dedicated quantitative coronary analysis methodology for bifurcation lesions. EuroIntervention. 2008;3:553–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ather S, Bavishi CP, Bhatia V, Bajaj NS, Leesar MA. Comparison of failure rates of crossing side branch with pressure vs. coronary guidewire: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Investig. 2016;46:448–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Omori H, Kawase Y, Tanigaki T, Matsuo H. The utility of a jailed pressure wire technique for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesion in a patient with chronic kidney disease. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2017;32(3):269–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lee JM, Koo BK, Kumsars I, et al. Coronary fractional flow reserve in bifurcation stenoses: what have we learned? EuroIntervention. 2015;11(Suppl V):V59–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Furukawa E, Hibi K, Kosuge M, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors of side branch occlusion in bifurcation lesions after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ J. 2005;69:325–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Okamura T, Onuma Y, Yamada J, et al. 3D optical coherence tomography: new insights into the process of optimal rewiring of side branches during bifurcational stenting. EuroIntervention. 2014;10:907–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gonzalo N, Garcia-Garcia HM, Regar E, et al. In vivo assessment of high-risk coronary plaques at bifurcations with combined intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:473–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tyczynski P, Ferrante G, Moreno-Ambroj C, et al. Simple versus complex approaches to treating coronary bifurcation lesions: direct assessment of stent strut apposition by optical coherence tomography. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2010;63:904–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term mortality in stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:167–77.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Costa MA, Angiolillo DJ, Tannenbaum M, et al. Impact of stent deployment procedural factors on long-term effectiveness and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (final results of the multicenter prospective STLLR trial). Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:1704–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nakazawa G, Granada JF, Alviar CL, et al. Anti-CD34 antibodies immobilized on the surface of sirolimus-eluting stents enhance stent endothelialization. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:68–75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Louvard Y, Medina A. Definitions and classifications of bifurcation lesions and treatment. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(Suppl V):V23–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zamani P, Kinlay S. Long-term risk of clinical events from stenting side branches of coronary bifurcation lesions with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: an observational meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;77:202–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yamashita T, Nishida T, Adamian MG, et al. Bifurcation lesions: two stents versus one stent--immediate and follow-up results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:1145–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Colombo A, Moses JW, Morice MC, et al. Randomized study to evaluate sirolimus-eluting stents implanted at coronary bifurcation lesions. Circulation. 2004;109:1244–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pan M, de Lezo JS, Medina A, et al. Rapamycin-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcated coronary lesions: a randomized comparison of a simple versus complex strategy. Am Heart J. 2004;148:857–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Steigen TK, Maeng M, Wiseth R, et al. Randomized study on simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: the Nordic bifurcation study. Circulation. 2006;114:1955–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ferenc M, Gick M, Kienzle RP, et al. Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:2859–67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Colombo A, Bramucci E, Sacca S, et al. 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. 2009;119:71–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hildick-Smith D, de Belder AJ, Cooter N, et al. Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: the British bifurcation coronary study: old, new, and evolving strategies. Circulation. 2010;121:1235–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chen SL, Santoso T, Zhang JJ, et al. A randomized clinical study comparing double kissing crush with provisional stenting for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the DK-CRUSH-II (double kissing crush versus provisional stenting technique for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:914–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Maeng M, Holm NR, Erglis A, et al. Long-term results after simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: Nordic bifurcation study 5-year follow-up results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:30–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ferenc M, Ayoub M, Buttner HJ, et al. Long-term outcomes of routine versus provisional T-stenting for de novo coronary bifurcation lesions: five-year results of the bifurcations Bad Krozingen I study. EuroIntervention. 2015;11:856–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kim YH, Lee JH, Roh JH, et al. Randomized comparisons between different stenting approaches for bifurcation coronary lesions with or without side branch stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:550–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Genereux P, Kumsars I, Lesiak M, et al. A randomized trial of a dedicated bifurcation stent versus provisional stenting in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:533–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Behan MW, Holm NR, de Belder AJ, et al. Coronary bifurcation lesions treated with simple or complex stenting: 5-year survival from patient-level pooled analysis of the Nordic bifurcation study and the British bifurcation coronary study. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:1923–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Katritsis DG, Siontis GC, Ioannidis JP. Double versus single stenting for coronary bifurcation lesions: a meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:409–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Brar SS, Gray WA, Dangas G, et al. Bifurcation stenting with drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. EuroIntervention. 2009;5:475–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hakeem A, Khan FM, Bhatti S, et al. Provisional vs. Complex stenting strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Invasive Cardiol. 2009;21:589–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zhang F, Dong L, Ge J. Simple versus complex stenting strategy for coronary artery bifurcation lesions in the drug-eluting stent era: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart. 2009;95:1676–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Athappan G, Ponniah T, Jeyaseelan L. True coronary bifurcation lesions: meta-analysis and review of literature. J Cardiovasc Med. 2010;11:103–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Biondi-Zoccai G. Duplicate meta-analyses on coronary bifurcation strategies: when more is less? EuroIntervention. 2010;6:181–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Niccoli G, Ferrante G, Porto I, et al. Coronary bifurcation lesions: to stent one branch or both? A meta-analysis of patients treated with drug eluting stents. Int J Cardiol. 2010;139:80–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Behan MW, Holm NR, Curzen NP, et al. Simple or complex stenting for bifurcation coronary lesions: a patient-level pooled-analysis of the Nordic bifurcation study and the British bifurcation coronary study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:57–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Erglis A, Kumsars I, Niemela M, et al. Randomized comparison of coronary bifurcation stenting with the crush versus the culotte technique using sirolimus eluting stents: the Nordic stent technique study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:27–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sawaya FJ, Lefevre T, Chevalier B, et al. Contemporary approach to coronary bifurcation lesion treatment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:1861–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Louvard Y, Lefevre T, Morice MC. Percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation coronary disease. Heart. 2004;90:713–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Brunel P, Lefevre T, Darremont O, Louvard Y. Provisional T-stenting and kissing balloon in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: results of the French multicenter "TULIPE" study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:67–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Burzotta F, De Vita M, Sgueglia G, Todaro D, Trani C. How to solve difficult side branch access? EuroIntervention. 2010;6(Suppl J):J72–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Chatterjee A, Brott B, Foley F, Leesar MA. Electron microscopic examination of polymer coated hydrophilic guidewires used for side-branch protection during bifurcation coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:A1916. (Abstr).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Chatterjee A, Brott BC, Foley R, et al. Safety of hydrophilic guidewires used for side-branch protection during stenting and proximal optimization technique in coronary bifurcation lesions. Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions. 2016;17:456–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Vassilev D, Gil R. Clinical verification of a theory for predicting side branch stenosis after main vessel stenting in coronary bifurcation lesions. J Interv Cardiol. 2008;21:493–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lefevre T, Darremont O, Albiero R. Provisional side branch stenting for the treatment of bifurcation lesions. EuroIntervention. 2010;6(Suppl J):J65–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Darremont O, Leymarie JL, Lefevre T, Albiero R, Mortier P, Louvard Y. Technical aspects of the provisional side branch stenting strategy. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(Suppl V):V86–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Burzotta F, Trani C, Sianos G. Jailed balloon protection: a new technique to avoid acute side-branch occlusion during provisional stenting of bifurcated lesions. Bench test report and first clinical experience. EuroIntervention. 2010;5:809–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Furuichi S, Airoldi F, Colombo A. Rescue inverse crush: a way of get out of trouble. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;70:708–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ormiston JA, Webster MW, El Jack S, et al. Drug-eluting stents for coronary bifurcations: bench testing of provisional side-branch strategies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;67:49–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Murasato Y, Finet G, Foin N. Final kissing balloon inflation: the whole story. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(Suppl V):V81–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Niemela M, Kervinen K, Erglis A, et al. Randomized comparison of final kissing balloon dilatation versus no final kissing balloon dilatation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with main vessel stenting: the Nordic-Baltic bifurcation study III. Circulation. 2011;123:79–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Gwon HC, Hahn JY, Koo BK, et al. Final kissing ballooning and long-term clinical outcomes in coronary bifurcation lesions treated with 1-stent technique: results from the COBIS registry. Heart. 2012;98:225–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Yu CW, Yang JH, Song YB, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of final kissing ballooning in coronary bifurcation lesions treated with the 1-stent technique: results from the COBIS II registry (Korean coronary bifurcation stenting registry). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1297–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Song YB, Park TK, Hahn JY, et al. Optimal strategy for provisional side branch intervention in coronary bifurcation lesions: 3-year outcomes of the SMART-STRATEGY randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:517–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Pan M, Medina A, Suarez de Lezo J, et al. Coronary bifurcation lesions treated with simple approach (from the Cordoba & las Palmas [CORPAL] kiss trial). Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:1460–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Rahman S, Leesar T, Cilingiroglu M, et al. Impact of kissing balloon inflation on the main vessel stent volume, area, and symmetry after side-branch dilation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions: a serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:923–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Foin N, Torii R, Alegria E, et al. Location of side branch access critically affects results in bifurcation stenting: insights from bench modeling and computational flow simulation. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:3623–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Park TK, Lee JH, Song YB, et al. Impact of non-compliant balloons on long-term clinical outcomes in coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the COBIS (COronary BIfurcation stent) II registry. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:456–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Foin N, Torii R, Mortier P, et al. Kissing balloon or sequential dilation of the side branch and main vessel for provisional stenting of bifurcations: lessons from micro-computed tomography and computational simulations. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:47–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Finet G, Derimay F, Motreff P, et al. Comparative analysis of sequential proximal optimizing technique versus kissing balloon inflation technique in provisional bifurcation stenting: fractal coronary bifurcation bench test. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1308–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Secco GG, Rittger H, Hoffmann S, et al. The Glider registry: a prospective multicentre registry of a new ultrashort dedicated balloon for side-branch ostial dilatation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013.
  101. 101.
    Chevalier B, Glatt B, Royer T, Guyon P. Placement of coronary stents in bifurcation lesions by the "culotte" technique. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82:943–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Zhang JJ, Chen SL. Classic crush and DK crush stenting techniques. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(Suppl V):V102–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ormiston JA, Webster MW, Webber B, Stewart JT, Ruygrok PN, Hatrick RI. The "crush" technique for coronary artery bifurcation stenting: insights from micro-computed tomographic imaging of bench deployments. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1:351–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Erglis A, Lassen JF, Di Mario C. Technical aspects of the culotte technique. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(Suppl V):V99–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ng J, Foin N, Ang HY, et al. Over-expansion capacity and stent design model: an update with contemporary DES platforms. Int J Cardiol. 2016;221:171–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Motreff P, Rioufol G, Gilard M, et al. Diffuse atherosclerotic left main coronary artery disease unmasked by fractal geometric law applied to quantitative coronary angiography: an angiographic and intravascular ultrasound study. EuroIntervention. 2010;5:709–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Kubo S, Kadota K, Sabbah M, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation with triple-kissing-balloon technique for left main trifurcation lesion: comparison of single-stent and multi-stent procedures. J Invasive Cardiol. 2014;26:571–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2223–35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Makikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet (London, England). 2016;388(10061):2743–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Palmerini T, Marzocchi A, Tamburino C, et al. Impact of bifurcation technique on 2-year clinical outcomes in 773 patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1:185–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Kim YH, Park SW, Hong MK, et al. Comparison of simple and complex stenting techniques in the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:1597–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Toyofuku M, Kimura T, Morimoto T, et al. Comparison of 5-year outcomes in patients with and without unprotected left main coronary artery disease after treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents: insights from the j-cypher registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:654–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    D’Ascenzo F, Iannaccone M, Giordana F, et al. Provisional vs. two-stent technique for unprotected left main coronary artery disease after ten years follow up: a propensity matched analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2016;211:37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Chieffo A, Hildick-Smith D. The European bifurcation Club left main study (EBC MAIN): rationale and design of an international, multicentre, randomised comparison of two stent strategies for the treatment of left main coronary bifurcation disease. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:47–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Gil RJ, Bil J, Dzavik V, et al. Regular drug-eluting stent vs dedicated coronary bifurcation BiOSS expert stent: Multicenter open-label randomized controlled POLBOS I trial. Can J Cardiol. 2015;31:671–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Gil RJ, Bil J, Vassiliev D, Inigo Garcia LA. First-in-man study of dedicated bifurcation sirolimus-eluting stent: 12-month results of BiOSS LIM(R) registry. J Interv Cardiol. 2015;28:51–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Dubois C, Bennett J, Dens J, et al. COmplex coronary bifurcation lesions: RAndomized comparison of a strategy using a dedicated self-expanding biolimus-eluting stent versus a culotte strategy using everolimus-eluting stents: primary results of the COBRA trial. EuroIntervention. 2016;11:1457–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Briguori C, Donahue M, Visconti G, et al. Coronary artery bifurcation narrowing treated by Axxess stent implantation: the CARINAX registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;89(4):E112–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Ohlow MA, Farah A, Richter S, El-Garhy M, von Korn H, Lauer B. Comparative case-control analysis of a dedicated self-expanding Biolimus A9-eluting bifurcation stent versus provisional or mandatory side branch intervention strategies in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;90(1):39–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Genereux P, Kini A, Lesiak M, et al. Outcomes of a dedicated stent in coronary bifurcations with large side branches: a subanalysis of the randomized TRYTON bifurcation study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87:1231–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Genereux P, Kumsars I, Schneider JE, et al. Dedicated bifurcation stent for the treatment of bifurcation lesions involving large side branches: outcomes from the Tryton confirmatory study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:1338–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Spaziano
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yves Louvard
    • 1
  • Thierry Lefèvre
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud, Hopital Privé Jacques CartierMassyFrance
  2. 2.McGill University Health CenterMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations