title: Bifurcation lesions: two stents versus one stent--immediate and follow-up results.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to evaluate two different techniques of stent placement in bifurcation lesions.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Although stent placement with dedicated techniques has been suggested to be a useful therapeutic modality for bifurcation lesions, limited information is available if stent placement on the side branch and on the parent branch provides any advantage over a simpler strategy of stenting the parent vessel and balloon angioplasty of the side branch.
  
  
  METHODS
  Between March 1993 and April 1999, we treated a total of 92 patients with bifurcation lesions with two strategies: stenting both vessels (group B, n = 53) or stenting the parent vessel and balloon angioplasty of the side branch (group P, n = 39). Paired angiograms were analyzed by quantitative angiography, and clinical follow-up was obtained.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Stent placement on both branches resulted in a lower residual stenosis (7.4 +/- 10.9% vs. 23.4% +/- 18.7%, p < 0.001) in the side branch. Acute procedural success was similar in the two groups (group B: 87% vs. Group P: 92%). In-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) occurred only in group B (13% vs. 0%, p < 0.05). At the six-month follow-up, the angiographic restenosis rate (group B: 62% vs. Group P: 48%) and the target lesion revascularization rate (38% vs. 36%, respectively) were similar in the two groups. There was no difference in the incidence of six-month total MACE (51% vs. 38%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  For the treatment of true bifurcation lesions, a complex strategy of stenting both vessels provided no advantage in terms of procedural success and late outcome versus a simpler strategy of stenting only the parent vessel.
authors.affiliation: EMO Centro Cuore Columbus, Milan, Italy.
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Yamashita
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Nishida
authors.forename: M G
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Adamian
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Briguori
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Vaghetti
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Corvaja
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Albiero
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Finci
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Di Mario
authors.forename: J M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Tobis
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Colombo
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D017023:Coronary Angiography; D003327:Coronary Disease / Q000145:classification / Q000150:complications / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000401:mortality / Q000628:therapy*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D017052:Hospital Mortality; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012008:Recurrence; D012307:Risk Factors; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D015607:Stents; D016896:Treatment Outcome