Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Bifurcation Lesions According to Medina Classification

Author:

Mohamed Mohamed O.12ORCID,Lamellas Pablo3,Roguin Ariel4,Oemrawsingh Rohit M.5,Ijsselmuiden Alexander J. J.6,Routledge Helen7,van Leeuwen Frank8,Debrus Roxane8,Roffi Marco9ORCID,Mamas Mamas A.1ORCID,

Affiliation:

1. Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Centre for Prognosis Research, Institutes of Applied Clinical Science and Primary Care and Health Sciences Keele University Newcastle United Kingdom

2. Institute of Health Informatics University College London London United Kingdom

3. Department of Interventional Cardiology and Endovascular Therapeutics Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires Buenos Aires Argentina

4. Department of Cardiology Hillel Yaffe Medical Center Hadera Israel

5. Albert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis Dordrecht the Netherlands

6. Cardiology Department Amphia Hospital Breda Breda the Netherlands

7. Worcestershire Royal Hospital Worcester United Kingdom

8. Medical and Clinical Division Terumo Europe NV Leuven Belgium

9. Division of Cardiology University Hospitals Geneva Switzerland

Abstract

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.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3