Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Bifurcation Lesions According to Medina Classification.
Medina classification
bifurcation
drug‐eluting stent
outcomes
percutaneous coronary intervention
Journal
Journal of the American Heart Association
ISSN: 2047-9980
Titre abrégé: J Am Heart Assoc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580524
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 09 2022
06 09 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
25
8
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
entrez:
24
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background Coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) are frequently encountered in clinical practice and are associated with worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. However, there are limited data around the prognostic impact of different CBL distributions. Methods and Results All CBL percutaneous coronary intervention procedures from the prospective e-Ultimaster (Prospective, Single-Arm, Multi Centre Observations Ultimaster Des Registry) multicenter international registry were analyzed according to CBL distribution as defined by the Medina classification. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the hazard ratio (HR) of the primary outcome, 1-year target lesion failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization), and its individual components between Medina subtypes using Medina 1.0.0 as the reference category. A total of 4003 CBL procedures were included. The most prevalent Medina subtypes were 1.1.1 (35.5%) and 1.1.0 (26.8%), whereas the least prevalent was 0.0.1 (3.5%). Overall, there were no significant differences in patient and procedural characteristics among Medina subtypes. Only Medina 1.1.1 and 0.0.1 subtypes were associated with increased target lesion failure (HR, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.3-5.5] and HR, 4.0 [95% CI, 1.6-9.0], respectively) at 1 year, compared with Medina 1.0.0, prompted by clinically driven target lesion revascularization (HR, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.1-8.6] and HR, 4.6 [95% CI, 1.3-16.0], respectively) as well as cardiac death in Medina 0.0.1 (HR, 4.7 [95% CI, 1.0-21.6]). No differences in secondary outcomes were observed between Medina subtypes. Conclusions In a large multicenter registry analysis of coronary bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, we demonstrate prognostic differences in 1-year outcomes between different CBL distributions, with Medina 1.1.1 and 0.0.1 subtypes associated with an increased risk of target lesion failure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36000428
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.025459
pmc: PMC9496427
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e025459Références
Eur Heart J. 1995 May;16(5):631-9
pubmed: 7588894
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Jan 1;97(1):186-187
pubmed: 32621563
EuroIntervention. 2020 Sep 18;16(7):603-612
pubmed: 32588821
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jul 2;62(1):30-4
pubmed: 23644088
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2006 Feb;59(2):183
pubmed: 16540043
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Nov;7(11):1266-76
pubmed: 25326748
J Interv Cardiol. 2016 Jun;29(3):285-92
pubmed: 27245124
EuroIntervention. 2021 Mar 19;16(16):1307-1317
pubmed: 33074152
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Sep 26;9(18):1861-78
pubmed: 27659563
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Aug;96(2):346-362
pubmed: 32406991
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009 Jun;62(6):606-14
pubmed: 19480756
EuroIntervention. 2010 Feb;5(7):871-4
pubmed: 20142206
Interv Cardiol. 2021 Apr 05;16:e06
pubmed: 33897832
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Jul;6(7):687-95
pubmed: 23769650
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Mar 27;10(6):571-581
pubmed: 28259665
Am J Cardiol. 2006 Jul 15;98(2):193-6
pubmed: 16828591
Eur Heart J. 2007 Feb;28(4):433-42
pubmed: 17267457
Am J Cardiol. 1991 Mar 1;67(6):491-5
pubmed: 1998280
Circ J. 2015;79(9):1954-62
pubmed: 26134457
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jun 22;13(12):1432-1444
pubmed: 32553331