Long-term outcomes after stenting of bifurcation lesions with the "crush" technique - Predictors of an adverse outcome

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to evaluate predictors of an adverse outcome after "crush" bifurcation stenting. BACKGROUND The "crush" technique is a recently introduced strategy with limited data regarding long-term outcomes. METHODS We identified 231 consecutive patients treated with drug-eluting stent implantation with the "crush" technique for 241 de novo bifurcation lesions. Clinical follow-up was obtained in 99.6%. RESULTS The in-hospital major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was 5.2%. At 9 months, 10 (4.3%) patients had an event consistent with possible post-procedural stent thrombosis. Survival free of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 90.3%; the only independent predictor of TLR was left main stem (LMS) therapy (odds ratio [OR] 4.97; 95% confidence interval [Cl] 2.00 to 12.37, p = 0.001). Survival free of MACE was 83.5% and independent predictors of MACE were LMS therapy (OR 3.79; 95% CI 1.76 to 8.14, p = 0.001) and treatment of patients with multivessel disease (OR 4.21; 95% CI 0.95 to 18.56, p = 0.058). Angiographic follow-up was obtained in 77% of lesions at 8.3 +/- 3.7months. The mean late loss of the main vessel and side branch were 0.30 +/- 0.64 mm and 0.41 +/- 0.67 mm, respectively, with binary restenosis rates of 9.1% and 25.3%. Kissing balloon post-dilation significantly reduced the side branch late lumen loss (0.24 +/- 0.50 mm vs. 0.58 +/- 0.77 mm, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The crush technique of bifurcation stenting with drug-eluting stents is associated with favorable outcomes for most lesions; however, efficacy appears significantly reduced in LMS bifurcations, and further research is needed before the technique can be routinely recommended in this group. Furthermore, the incidence of possible stent thrombosis is of concern and requires further investigation. Kissing balloon post-dilatation is mandatory to reduce side branch restenosis. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1949-58) (c) 2006 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.