Rodney H. Stables

Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the Stent or Surgery trial): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Results of trials, comparing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), indicate that rates of death or myocardial infarction are similar with either treatment strategy. Management with PTCA is, however, associated with an increased requirement for subsequent, additional revascularisation. Coronary stents, used as an adjunct to PTCA, reduce restenosis and the need for repeat revascularisation. The aim of the Stent or Surgery (SoS) trial was to assess the effect of stent-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus CABG in the management of patients with multivessel disease. METHODS: In 53 centres in Europe and Canada, symptomatic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were randomised to CABG (n=500) or stent-assisted PCI (n=488). The primary outcome measure was a comparison of the rates of repeat revascularisation. Secondary outcomes included death or Q-wave myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: All patients were followed-up for a minimum of 1 year and the results are expressed for the median follow-up of 2 years. 21% (n=101) of patients in the PCI group required additional revascularisation procedures compared with 6% (n=30) in the CABG group (hazard ratio 3.85, 95% CI 2.56-5.79, p<0.0001). The incidence of death or Q-wave myocardial infarction was similar in both groups (PCI 9% [n=46], CABG 10% [n=49]; hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.63-1.42, p=0.80). There were fewer deaths in the CABG group than in the PCI group (PCI 5% [n=22], CABG 2% [n=8]; hazard ratio 2.91, 95% CI 1.29-6.53, p=0.01). INTERPRETATION: The use of coronary stents has reduced the need for repeat revascularisation when compared with previous studies that used balloon angioplasty, though the rate remains significantly higher than in patients managed with CABG. The apparent reduction in mortality with CABG requires further investigation.BACKGROUND Results of trials, comparing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), indicate that rates of death or myocardial infarction are similar with either treatment strategy. Management with PTCA is, however, associated with an increased requirement for subsequent, additional revascularisation. Coronary stents, used as an adjunct to PTCA, reduce restenosis and the need for repeat revascularisation. The aim of the Stent or Surgery (SoS) trial was to assess the effect of stent-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus CABG in the management of patients with multivessel disease. METHODS In 53 centres in Europe and Canada, symptomatic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were randomised to CABG (n=500) or stent-assisted PCI (n=488). The primary outcome measure was a comparison of the rates of repeat revascularisation. Secondary outcomes included death or Q-wave myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS All patients were followed-up for a minimum of 1 year and the results are expressed for the median follow-up of 2 years. 21% (n=101) of patients in the PCI group required additional revascularisation procedures compared with 6% (n=30) in the CABG group (hazard ratio 3.85, 95% CI 2.56-5.79, p<0.0001). The incidence of death or Q-wave myocardial infarction was similar in both groups (PCI 9% [n=46], CABG 10% [n=49]; hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.63-1.42, p=0.80). There were fewer deaths in the CABG group than in the PCI group (PCI 5% [n=22], CABG 2% [n=8]; hazard ratio 2.91, 95% CI 1.29-6.53, p=0.01). INTERPRETATION The use of coronary stents has reduced the need for repeat revascularisation when compared with previous studies that used balloon angioplasty, though the rate remains significantly higher than in patients managed with CABG. The apparent reduction in mortality with CABG requires further investigation.

Randomized Trial of Simple Versus Complex Drug-Eluting Stenting for Bifurcation Lesions The British Bifurcation Coronary Study: Old, New, and Evolving Strategies

Background The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques. Methods and Results Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64 10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations ( 50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simplegroup (n 250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n 250), 89% of culotte (n 75) and 72% of crush (n 169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P 0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P 0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P 0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Conclusions When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases.Background— The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques. Methods and Results— Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64±10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations (>50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simple group (n=250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n=250), 89% of culotte (n=75) and 72% of crush (n=169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P=0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P=0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P=0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Conclusions— When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases. Clinical Trial Registration Information— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00351260.

Randomised study comparing complex versus simple drug-eluting stent strategies for coronary bifurcations

Background The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques. Methods and Results Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64 10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations ( 50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simplegroup (n 250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n 250), 89% of culotte (n 75) and 72% of crush (n 169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P 0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P 0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P 0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Conclusions When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases.Background— The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques. Methods and Results— Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64±10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations (>50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simple group (n=250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n=250), 89% of culotte (n=75) and 72% of crush (n=169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P=0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P=0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P=0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Conclusions— When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases. Clinical Trial Registration Information— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00351260.

Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT Observational studies have previously reported that elective intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) insertion may improve outcomes following high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To date, this assertion has not been tested in a randomized trial. OBJECTIVE To determine whether routine intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation before PCI reduces major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (MACCE) in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and extensive coronary disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS The Balloon Pump-Assisted Coronary Intervention Study, a prospective, open, multicenter, randomized controlled trial conducted in 17 tertiary referral cardiac centers in the United Kingdom between December 2005 and January 2009. Patients (n = 301) had severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction < or = 30%) and extensive coronary disease (Jeopardy Score > or = 8/12); those with contraindications to or class I indications for IABP therapy were excluded. INTERVENTION Elective insertion of IABP before PCI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary end point was MACCE, defined as death, acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular event, or further revascularization at hospital discharge (capped at 28 days). Secondary end points included all-cause mortality at 6 months, major procedural complications, bleeding, and access-site complications. RESULTS MACCE at hospital discharge occurred in 15.2% (23/151) of the elective IABP and 16.0% (24/150) of the no planned IABP groups (P = .85; odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.51-1.76]). All-cause mortality at 6 months was 4.6% and 7.4% in the respective groups (P = .32; OR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.24-1.62]). Fewer major procedural complications occurred with elective IABP insertion compared with no planned IABP use (1.3% vs 10.7%, P < .001; OR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.01-0.49]). Major or minor bleeding occurred in 19.2% and 11.3% (P = .06; OR, 1.86 [95% CI, 0.93-3.79]) and access-site complications in 3.3% and 0% (P = .06) of the elective and no planned IABP groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Elective IABP insertion did not reduce the incidence of MACCE following PCI. These results do not support a strategy of routine IABP placement before PCI in all patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and extensive coronary disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN40553718; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00910481.

Randomized, Controlled Trial of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Six-Year Follow-Up From the Stent or Surgery Trial (SoS)

Background— The Stent or Surgery Trial is a randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with multivessel disease. Initial results at a median follow-up of 2 years showed a survival advantage for patients randomized to CABG. This article reports survival outcome at a median follow-up of 6 years. Methods and Results— A total of 988 (n=488 percutaneous coronary intervention, n=500 CABG) patients were randomized at 53 centers during the period from 1996 to 1999. Investigators established survival status from hospital or community medical records or national databases or by direct contact with patients and their relatives. All-cause mortality was compared with hazard ratios and confidence intervals calculated from Cox proportional hazards models. Prespecified subgroup analyses for diabetes mellitus, angina grade, and angiographic severity of coronary disease at baseline were performed with tests for interaction. At a median follow-up of 6 years, 53 patients (10.9%) died in the percutaneous coronary intervention group compared with 34 (6.8%) in the CABG group (hazard ratio 1.66, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 2.55, P=0.022). Little evidence was found that the treatment effect on mortality differed between subgroups according to baseline angina grade (interaction test P=0.52), the severity of coronary disease (P=0.92), or diabetic status (P=0.15). Conclusions— At a median follow-up of 6 years, a continuing survival advantage was observed for patients managed with CABG, which is not consistent with results from other stent-versus-CABG studies.

Impact of length and hydrophilic coating of the introducer sheath on radial artery spasm during transradial coronary intervention: a randomized study.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the impact of length and hydrophilic coating of the introducer sheath on radial artery spasm, radial artery occlusion, and local vascular complications in patients undergoing transradial coronary procedures. BACKGROUND Radial artery spasm is common during transradial procedures and the most common cause for procedural failure. METHODS We randomly assigned, in a factorial design, 790 patients scheduled for a transradial coronary procedure to long (23-cm) or short (13-cm) and hydrophilic-coated or uncoated introducer sheaths. The primary outcome measure was clinical evidence of radial artery spasm, and secondary outcome measures were patient discomfort and local vascular complications. RESULTS Procedural success was achieved in 96% of the cases, and radial artery spasm accounted for 17 of 33 failed cases. There was significantly less radial artery spasm (19.0% vs. 39.9%, odds ratio [OR]: 2.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07 to 3.97, p < 0.001) and patient reported discomfort (15.1% vs. 28.5%, OR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.59 to 3.23, p < 0.001) in patients receiving a hydrophilic-coated sheath. No difference was observed between long and short sheaths. Radial artery occlusion was observed in 9.5% of the patients and was not influenced by sheath length or coating. A local large hematoma or arterial dissection was seen in 2.6% of the patients with no difference in groups allocated at randomization. Younger age, female sex, diabetes, and lower body mass index were identified as independent predictors of radial artery spasm. CONCLUSIONS Hydrophilic sheath coating, but not sheath length, reduces the incidence of radial artery spasm during transradial coronary procedures.

Percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions: Improved survival for patients with successful revascularization compared to a failed procedure

There are limited data on the impact of successful chronic total occlusion (CTO) revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on survival. We performed a retrospective study comparing the survival between patients with a successful and a failed CTO revascularization by PCI.

Simple or Complex Stenting for Bifurcation Coronary Lesions A Patient-Level Pooled-Analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study

Background— Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results— Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P =0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P =0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P =0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P =0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P =0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P =0.57). Conclusions— For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.Background—Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results—Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P=0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P=0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P=0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P=0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P=0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P=0.57). Conclusions—For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.

Simple or Complex Stenting for Bifurcation Coronary LesionsClinical Perspective

Background— Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results— Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P =0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P =0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P =0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P =0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P =0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P =0.57). Conclusions— For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.Background—Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results—Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P=0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P=0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P=0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P=0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P=0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P=0.57). Conclusions—For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.

Disease-specific health status after stent-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery: one-year results from the Stent or Surgery trial.

Background—Functional status and quality of life are important outcomes in the evaluation of revascularization approaches for symptomatic coronary artery disease. Few data are available regarding the comparative improvement in disease-specific health status after CABG versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the era of coronary stenting. Methods and Results—Cardiac-specific health status was evaluated at baseline and at 6 and 12 months after intervention with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) in patients randomized to stent-assisted PCI (n=488) versus CABG (n=500) in the Stent or Surgery trial. Scores for physical limitation, angina frequency, and quality of life improved significantly for both treatment groups at 6 months (range of improvement from 13.6 to 34.7 points) and 12 months (14.3 to 38.2 points; all P <0.001). CABG patients had greater improvement than those assigned to PCI, although the magnitude of the difference decreased over time (difference at 6 months, 4.03 to 6.48 points; 12 months, 2.05 to 2.93 points). A component of this reduction is accounted for by PCI-arm patients who required repeat intervention. Differences between treatment groups were greatest for the 6-month angina frequency scores (difference=6.48 points; 95% CI 3.96 to 8.99). Overall, treatment satisfaction was high and did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions—Both CABG and stent-assisted PCI dramatically improved cardiac-related health status in patients with multivessel disease at 6- and 12-month follow-up. During the first postprocedure year, patients’ angina burden and physical limitations were alleviated to a greater extent with CABG.