Long-term outcomes of drug-eluting balloons for treatment of side branches in patients with true coronary bifurcation lesions

Abstract

Background: Bifurcation treatments make up ca. 15–20% of coronary interventions. Despite the use of drug-eluting stents, the management of bifurcation lesions, especially with side branches involved, remains a challenge.Objective: To evaluate long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes after using a paclitaxel-coated balloon for the treatment of side branches in patients with true bifurcation lesions.Methods: Eighty patients with coronary artery disease were enrolled after true bifurcation lesion stenting. All patients were randomized at the 1:1 ratio to the group of main branches stenting followed by the dilatation of side branches with drug-eluting balloons and provisional stenting group.Results: Long-term results were analyzed after 12 months. The most common bifurcation lesion involved the left anterior descending artery and diagonal branch (57.5%). Late lumen loss in the side branch (0.51 ± 0.22 vs 0.33 ± 0.24 mm) and in both the bifurcation branches (main branch + side branch) (1.06 ± 0.29 vs 0.79 ± 0.27 mm) was significantly higher in the patients after provisional stenting.Overall postoperative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was 17.5% and 7.5% (p = 0.31) in the provisional stenting and drug coated balloon groups, respectively. Patients with drug-eluting balloons for the treatment of side branches had a more pronounced decrease in angina symptoms after 12 months. Multivariate analysis showed that diabetes mellitus (OR: 10.9) and glomerular filtration rate (OR: 0.95) were independent predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events in bifurcation interventions.Conclusion: Drug-eluting balloons for the dilatation of side branches after the stenting of main branches are superior to provisional stenting in terms of the late lumen loss. Received 31 August 2022. Revised 17 November 2022. Accepted 18 November 2022. Funding: The study did not have sponsorship. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Contribution of the authorsConception and study design: T.K. Eraliev, D.A. Khelimskii, A.G. Badoian, O.V. KrestyaninovData collection and analysis: T.K. Eraliev, D.A. Khelimskii, A.G. Badoian, O.V. Krestyaninov, A.A. Baranov, A.P. GorgulkoStatistical analysis: T.K. Eraliev, D.A. Khelimskii, A.G. BadoianDrafting the article: T.K. Eraliev, D.A. Khelimskii, A.G. Badoian, O.V. Krestyaninov, A.A. Baranov, A.P. GorgulkoCritical revision of the article: T.K. Eraliev, D.A. Khelimskii, A.G. Badoian, O.V. KrestyaninovFinal approval of the version to be published: T.K. Eraliev, D.A. Khelimskii, A.G. Badoian, O.V. Krestyaninov, A.A. Baranov, A.P. Gorgulko