Sex-based treatment and outcomes for coronary bifurcation stenting: A report from the e-ULTIMASTER registry.
bifurcation
clinical research
drug-eluting stent
sex
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2023
09 2023
Historique:
revised:
02
06
2023
received:
19
03
2023
accepted:
09
07
2023
medline:
12
9
2023
pubmed:
19
7
2023
entrez:
19
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for bifurcation lesions can be technically challenging and is associated with higher risk. There is little data on sex-based differences in strategy and outcomes in bifurcation PCI. We sought to assess whether differences exist between women and men in the treatment and outcomes of bifurcation PCI. We collected data on 4006 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, from the e-ULTIMASTER study, a prospective, multicentre study enrolling patients from 2014 to 2018. We divided the bifurcation cohort according to sex, with 1-year follow-up of outcomes (target lesion failure [TLF], target vessel failure [TVF], and patient-oriented composite endpoint [POCE]). Women were older (69.2 ± 10.9 years vs. 64.4 ± 11.0 years), with a greater burden of cardiovascular comorbidities. For true and non-true bifurcation lesions, women and men were equally likely to undergo a single stent approach (true: 63.2% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.79, non-true: 95.4% vs. 94.3%, p = 0.32), with similar rates of final kissing balloon (FKB) (37.2% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.36) and proximal optimization (POT) (34.4% vs. 34.2%, p = 0.93) in cases where two stents were used. Lastly, after propensity score matching, there was no difference between women and men in the incidence of the composite endpoints of TLF (5.5% vs. 5.2%, RR 1.05 [95% CI 0.77-1.44], p = 0.75), TVF (6.2% vs. 6.3%, RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.74-1.32], p = 0.96), and POCE (9.9% vs. 9.5%, RR 1.05 [95% CI 0.83-1.31], p = 0.70). In this contemporary, real-world study of bifurcation PCI, we report no difference in stent strategy between women and men, with similar outcomes at 1-year.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for bifurcation lesions can be technically challenging and is associated with higher risk. There is little data on sex-based differences in strategy and outcomes in bifurcation PCI.
AIMS
We sought to assess whether differences exist between women and men in the treatment and outcomes of bifurcation PCI.
METHODS
We collected data on 4006 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, from the e-ULTIMASTER study, a prospective, multicentre study enrolling patients from 2014 to 2018. We divided the bifurcation cohort according to sex, with 1-year follow-up of outcomes (target lesion failure [TLF], target vessel failure [TVF], and patient-oriented composite endpoint [POCE]).
FINDINGS
Women were older (69.2 ± 10.9 years vs. 64.4 ± 11.0 years), with a greater burden of cardiovascular comorbidities. For true and non-true bifurcation lesions, women and men were equally likely to undergo a single stent approach (true: 63.2% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.79, non-true: 95.4% vs. 94.3%, p = 0.32), with similar rates of final kissing balloon (FKB) (37.2% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.36) and proximal optimization (POT) (34.4% vs. 34.2%, p = 0.93) in cases where two stents were used. Lastly, after propensity score matching, there was no difference between women and men in the incidence of the composite endpoints of TLF (5.5% vs. 5.2%, RR 1.05 [95% CI 0.77-1.44], p = 0.75), TVF (6.2% vs. 6.3%, RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.74-1.32], p = 0.96), and POCE (9.9% vs. 9.5%, RR 1.05 [95% CI 0.83-1.31], p = 0.70).
CONCLUSION
In this contemporary, real-world study of bifurcation PCI, we report no difference in stent strategy between women and men, with similar outcomes at 1-year.
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
430-439Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Myler RK, Shaw RE, Stertzer SH, et al. Lesion morphology and coronary angioplasty: current experience and analysis. JACC. 1992;19:1641-1652.
Steigen TK, Maeng M, Wiseth R, et al. Randomized study on simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions. Circulation. 2006;114:1955-1961.
Sawaya FJ, Lefèvre T, Chevalier B, et al. Contemporary approach to coronary bifurcation lesion treatment. JACC. 2016;9:1861-1878.
Mohamed MO, Lamellas P, Roguin A, et al. Clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation lesions according to medina classification. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11:e025459.
Park TK, Park YH, Song YB, et al. Long-Term clinical outcomes of true and Non-True bifurcation lesions according to medina classification - results from the COBIS (COronary BIfurcation Stent) II registry. Circ J. 2015;79:1954-1962.
Ninomiya K, Serruys PW, Garg S, et al. Predicted and observed mortality at 10 years in patients with bifurcation lesions in the SYNTAX trial. JACC. 2022;15:1231-1242.
Potts J, Mohamed MO, Lopez Mattei JC, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital outcomes in patients with leukemia: a nationwide analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96:53-63.
Heer T, Hochadel M, Schmidt K, et al. Sex differences in percutaneous coronary Intervention-Insights from the coronary angiography and PCI registry of the German society of cardiology. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;6:e004972.
Shamkhani W, Kinnaird T, Ludman P, Rashid M, Mamas MA. Sex differences in high-risk but indicated coronary interventions (CHiP): national report from British cardiovascular intervention society registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;99(2):447-456.
Tobb K, Kocher M, Bullock-Palmer RP. Underrepresentation of women in cardiovascular trials- it is time to shatter this glass ceiling. Am Heart Journal Plus Cardiol Res Prac. 2022;13:100109.
Jin X, Chandramouli C, Allocco B, Gong E, Lam CSP, Yan LL. Women's participation in cardiovascular clinical trials from 2010 to 2017. Circulation. 2020;141:540-548.
Mohamed MO, Polad J, Hildick-Smith D, et al. Impact of coronary lesion complexity in percutaneous coronary intervention: one-year outcomes from the large, multicentre e-ULTIMASTER registry. EuroIntervention. 2020;16:603-612.
Cimci M, Polad J, Mamas M, et al. Outcomes and regional differences in practice in a worldwide coronary stent registry. Heart. 2022;108:1310-1318. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320116
Thomas M, Hildick-Smith D, Louvard Y, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation disease. A consensus view from the first meeting of the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2006;2:149-153.
Kyu PT, Park YH, Song YB, et al. Long-Term clinical outcomes of true and Non-True bifurcation lesions according to medina classification: results from the cobis (Coronary Bifurcation Stent) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:A1910.
Vranckx P, Cutlip D, Mehran R, et al. Myocardial infarction adjudication in contemporary all-comer stent trials: balancing sensitivity and specificity. EuroIntervention. 2010;5:871-874.
Osman M, Ghaffar YA, Osman K, et al. Gender-based outcomes of coronary bifurcation stenting: a report from The National readmission database. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;99:433-439.
Schamroth Pravda N, Perl L, Greenberg G, et al. Impact of sex on outcomes of bifurcation lesion percutaneous coronary intervention: results from a single-centre prospective registry. Coron Artery Dis. 2022;33:31-36.
Wenger NK. Coronary heart disease: the female heart is vulnerable. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2003;46:199-229.
Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ôunpuu S, et al. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet. 2004;364:937-952.
Iorga A, Cunningham CM, Moazeni S, Ruffenach G, Umar S, Eghbali M. The protective role of estrogen and estrogen receptors in cardiovascular disease and the controversial use of estrogen therapy. Biol Sex Differ. 2017;8:33.
Mikhail GW. Coronary heart disease in women. BMJ. 2005;331:467-468.
Burzotta F, Lassen JF, Lefèvre T, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation coronary lesions: the 15th consensus document from the european bifurcation club. EuroIntervention. 2021;16:1307-1317.
Colombo A, Bramucci E, Saccà S, et al. Randomized study of the crush technique versus provisional Side-Branch stenting in true coronary bifurcations. Circulation. 2009;119:71-78.
Hildick-Smith D, de Belder AJ, Cooter N, et al. Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions. Circulation. 2010;121:1235-1243.
Zhang J-J, Ye F, Xu K, et al. Multicentre, randomized comparison of two-stent and provisional stenting techniques in patients with complex coronary bifurcation lesions: the DEFINITION II trial. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:2523-2536.
Fujisaki T, Kuno T, Numasawa Y, et al. Provisional or 2-Stent technique for bifurcation lesions in the Second-Generation Drug-Eluting stent era. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interven. 2022;1:100410.
Lee JM, Lee SH, Kim J, et al. Ten-Year trends in coronary bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention: prognostic effects of patient and lesion characteristics, devices, and techniques. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e021632.
Liu G, Ke X, Huang ZB, et al. Final kissing balloon inflation for coronary bifurcation lesions treated with single-stent technique. Herz. 2019;44:354-362.
Kini AS, Dangas GD, Baber U, et al. Influence of final kissing balloon inflation on long-term outcomes after PCI of distal left main bifurcation lesions in the EXCEL trial. EuroIntervention. 2020;16:218-224.