Difference in basic concept of coronary bifurcation intervention between Korea and Japan. Insight from questionnaire in experts of Korean and Japanese bifurcation clubs

Abstract

AbstractThe coronary bifurcation intervention varies among countries due to the differences in assessment of lesion severity and treatment devices. We sought to clarify the difference in basic strategy between South Korea and Japan. A total of 19 and 32 experts from Korean (KBC) and Japanese Bifurcation Clubs (JBC), respectively, answered a survey questionnaire concerning their usual procedure of coronary bifurcation intervention. JBC experts performed less two-stent deployment in the left main (LM) bifurcation compared to KBC experts (JBC vs. KBC: median, 1–10% vs. 21–30%, p < 0.0001) instead of higher performance of side branch dilation after cross-over stenting in both LM (60% vs. 21%, p = 0.001) and non-LM bifurcations (30% vs. 5%, p = 0.037). KBC experts more frequently performed proximal optimization technique (POT) in non-LM bifurcation (41–60% vs. 81–99%, p = 0.028) and re-POT in both LM (1–20% vs. 81–99%, p = 0.017) and non-LM bifurcations (1–20% vs. 81–99%, p = 0.0003). JBC experts more frequently performed imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas KBC experts more often used a pressure wire to assess side branch ischemia. JBC experts used a rotablator more aggressively under the guidance of optical coherence tomography. We clarified the difference in the basic strategy of coronary bifurcation intervention between South Korea and Japan for better understanding the trend in each country.