Article

Left Main Disease and Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Focus on Antithrombotic Therapy

Abstract

Revascularization of both left main and bifurcation lesions is currently considered an important feature of complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), whereas stenting distal left main bifurcation is fairly challenging. Recent evidence shows that such lesions are associated with an increased risk of ischemic events. There is no universal consensus on the optimal PCI strategy or the appropriate type and duration of antithrombotic therapy to mitigate the thrombotic risk. Prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy or use of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors have been investigated in the context of this high-risk subset of the population undergoing PCI. Thus, while complex PCI is a growing field in interventional cardiology, left main and bifurcation PCI constitutes a fair amount of the total complex procedures performed recently, and there is cumulative interest regarding antithrombotic therapy type and duration in this subset of patients, with decision-making mostly based on clinical presentation, baseline bleeding, and ischemic risk, as well as the performed stenting strategy.

Disclosure: DA has received lecturing honoraria/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Chiesi Hellas. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Received:

Accepted:

Published online:

Citation:US Cardiology Review 2021;15:e11.

Correspondence: Charalampos Varlamos, 2nd Department of Cardiology, Attikon University Hospital, Rimini 1, Chaidari 12462, Athens, Greece. E: chvar@yahoo.com

Open access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

Left main (LM) coronary artery disease (CAD) is a potentially fatal condition with poor prognosis as a result of a large myocardial territory at risk.1 Therefore, diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of LM-CAD are crucial to decrease the risk of future events.2,3 It is now well established that revascularization is recommended for any LM stenosis ≥50%, regardless of symptoms, ischemic burden, or concomitant CAD. The type of revascularization – coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) – depends on many factors, namely predicted surgical mortality, anatomical complexity of CAD, anticipated completeness of revascularization, patient comorbidities, and other technical aspects (Figure 1).4

PCI of the LM shaft is a procedure that has been associated with better clinical outcomes and a lower need for late repeat revascularization than PCI of the distal bifurcation, which is generally considered more challenging.5 The latter can partially explain why, until recently, some authors did not define PCI of the LM as a complex procedure, in contrast to the recently published European guidelines.6–8 Conversely, bifurcation PCI is considered complex when at least two stents are implanted according to the European Society of Cardiology focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).7 Nevertheless, there are studies where stenting bifurcation lesions with side branch diameter ≥2.5 mm is also considered of increased complexity, whereas in the DEFINITION study, the authors defined complex bifurcation lesions by high-risk angiographic features, as shown in Table 1.4,9

In the context of these high ischemic risk interventions, there is a growing interest regarding the optimal antithrombotic treatment type and duration, with decision-making based on the clinical presentation, the baseline risk of bleeding, and thrombotic events, as well as the chosen stenting strategy.

PCI Versus CABG for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Until recently, CABG was considered the most appropriate treatment of LM-CAD; however, recent knowledge suggests that PCI can be an alternative to CABG in specific subgroups of patients with lesser extent of atherosclerotic burden.10 There are six randomized control trials comparing PCI with CABG, but only two of them – EXCEL and NOBLE – were conducted in the era of second-generation stents.11,12 All but the NOBLE trial showed that PCI was non-inferior to CABG regarding major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), while the rate of repeat revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI arm (Table 2).13–18 Therefore, a meta-analysis of five randomized clinical trials performed by Ahmad et al. showed no significant difference in all-cause death, cardiac mortality, stroke, or MI within a mean follow-up of 67.1 months. Unplanned revascularization was less common after CABG.19

In the light of the above findings, the European Society of Cardiology suggests PCI as an equivalent to CABG regarding mortality, MI, and stroke in patients with LM-CAD and low SYNTAX score (0–22), while PCI is not favored in more anatomically complex lesions (SYNTAX score 23–32) and is contraindicated when the SYNTAX score exceeds 32.4 Regarding US guidelines, PCI is considered with a class IIa recommendation as an alternative to CABG if the coronary anatomy is associated with a low risk of procedural complications and a high likelihood of good long-term outcome (e.g. SYNTAX score ≤22, ostial or trunk LM-CAD), and the clinical characteristics predict a significantly increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes (e.g. Society of Thoracic Surgeons-predicted risk of operative mortality ≥5%).20

Factors That Determine the Choice Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Left Main and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Article image

Definition of Complex Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention According to the DEFINITION Study

Article image

Overall, percutaneous revascularization of the LM demands an experienced operator, adequate preparation, and frequent use of newer techniques to offer a reliable alternative to CABG in patients with appropriate coronary anatomy.

Increased Thrombotic Risk of Left Main and Bifurcation Coronary Disease

Complex PCI is generally associated with an increased risk of MACE and stent thrombosis (ST). PCI to unprotected LM-CAD is a demanding intervention that can occasionally lead to compromised final flow or side branch occlusion.3 From an autopsy registry regarding LM PCI, the most common cause of ST was malapposition, followed by uncovered strut, multiple stent techniques, and provisional stent technique without side branch dilatation.21 Stent deposition-related factors, such as malapposition or underexpansion, by delaying endothelization and enhancing the pro-thrombotic environment, are common triggers of adverse ischemic events.22 The latter has been associated with the chosen PCI technique performed, with the two-stent technique yielding numerically better results regarding cardiac death in patients with LM bifurcation disease compared with the one-stent technique.23 Moreover, the double-kissing (DK) crush technique compared with provisional stenting has been related with better outcomes, including a significantly lower composite endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) and ST.24 Thus, proper planning of the procedure is pivotal in bifurcation LM-CAD, as the ‘bail-out’ placement of a second stent has been associated with a higher risk of ST than planned double stenting.25

However, stenting all types of bifurcation lesions has been widely recognized as a predisposing factor for thrombosis. Among all the spectrum of complex PCI procedures, bifurcation has been directly and more prominently associated with increased risk of ischemic outcomes, including coronary thrombotic events, ST, and MI within a 2-year follow-up.26 Interestingly, implantation of two stents was associated with an even higher incidence of ST in the ADAPT-DES study (2.8% at 2-year follow-up), as well as with a higher proportion of TLF in the recently published post-hoc subanalysis of the e-Ultimaster registry (6.2% at 1-year follow-up).27,28 Of all bifurcations in the coronary circulation, those involving the left anterior descending artery and diagonal branches are the most frequently encountered in clinical trials.9

Regarding the background of thrombosis, anatomical factors, such as the fractal geometry of vascular bifurcations, increase the incidence of strut malapposition and stent underexpansion, leading to an increased ischemic risk. Except from excessive lesion calcification and inflammatory reaction, coronary artery bifurcation lesions exhibit localized turbulent flow and enhanced propensity for platelet aggregation, plaque rupture, and atherothrombosis.29 Of note, flow conditions vary in bifurcation lesion types according to the clinically oriented Medina classification, with Medina 1,0,1 more prone to atherosclerosis progression.30 In addition, shear stress plays an important role in the initiation and proliferation of coronary atherosclerosis. A baseline low shear stress after bifurcation PCI, which decreases to its minimum value post-procedural, but eventually recovers to around its baseline level, could be the setting of in-stent restenosis.31 Last, but not least, stenting LM or bifurcation lesions usually require the use of a greater total stent length or higher volume of intravenous contrast, factors that could augment the thrombotic risk. Therefore, the implementation of individualized antithrombotic regimens to mitigate the ischemic risk, according to procedural complexity, is of utmost importance.

Stenting Techniques for Left Main Bifurcation and Antiplatelet Therapy Used in Major Trials

Regarding percutaneous LM bifurcation treatment options, the European Bifurcation Club recommends a provisional side branch approach in most cases of distal disease.32 However, two-stent approaches, but mostly the DK crush technique, although technically challenging, have emerged as a preferred approach for true distal LM bifurcation lesions.33 Several observational studies and two randomized trials have already been published, while others are ongoing and the results are awaited with great interest (Table 3).3,24,34–38

Randomized Trials Comparing Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Article image

Major Trials Investigating Stenting Techniques and Antiplatelet Agents Used

Article image

Stenting LM bifurcation is feasible with one- or two-stent techniques. A large single-center study that enrolled patients with distal unprotected LM-CAD and a low-intermediate SYNTAX score found that the two techniques did not differ significantly regarding MACE at a mean follow-up of 4 years.34 Additionally, data collected from the Korea Coronary Bifurcation Stent registry found non-inferiority of the one-stent technique compared with the two-stent technique in patients with non-LM true coronary bifurcation disease.37 Of interest, the two-stent technique has been linked to a higher incidence of TLF, mainly caused by restenosis at the ostial left circumflex artery.38 In contrast, there is cumulative evidence that the DK crush technique could be a favorable approach to true LM bifurcation PCI. The DK crush technique resulted in lower rates of a composite primary endpoint at 1-year follow-up compared with provisional stenting in patients with distal bifurcation LM-CAD.24 Moreover, the DK crush technique was associated with significantly lower rates of MACE and ST compared with the Culotte technique, mainly due to a decrease in MI (3.4 versus 8.2%, p=0.037) and target vessel revascularization (5.8 versus 18.8%, p<0.001), as well as significantly decreased rates of MACE at 5-year follow-up, compared with the other two-stent approaches or the one-stent approach, mainly driven by a reduction in target vessel revascularization (7.7 versus 30.5 versus 18.1%, p<0.001).35,36 Regarding antiplatelet agents of choice, clopidogrel at a loading dose of 300 mg and aspirin were administered in the majority of trials delineating stenting techniques (Table 2). Ticlopidine was another option, while potent P2Y12 inhibitors, such as prasugrel or ticagrelor, were not used in these studies’ populations. The duration of DAPT was mostly for 12 months.

Duration and Type of Antiplatelet Therapy in Left Main and/or Bifurcation PCI

The aforementioned findings point to the fact that patients undergoing PCI of LM bifurcation are at increased risk for thrombotic complications. Therefore, intensification of antithrombotic pharmacotherapy might be beneficial towards ischemic risk mitigation in this subset of population, although data are scarce. In trials exploring the optimal antiplatelet treatment strategy in complex PCI patients, prolongation of DAPT seemed beneficial in terms of ischemic outcomes, with the caveat of a potential higher bleeding risk.

In patients undergoing complex PCI, the prolonged DAPT (≥12 months) group experienced a significant MACE reduction in comparison with short DAPT (3–6 months) group (adjusted HR 0.56; 95% CI [0.35–0.89]), although this was associated with a higher incidence of major bleeding (1.03 versus 0.52%; incidence rate difference 0.51%). The beneficial effect of long-term DAPT on MACE reduction was homogenous between the subsets of complex PCI; that is, patients with multivessel PCI and bifurcation PCI with two stents (incidence rate difference −8.31% and −0.42% for long-term versus short-term DAPT, respectively) were favored for this approach.26 Similarly, prolonged DAPT (≥12 months) was associated with a reduced incidence of all-cause death or MI and ST at 4-year follow-up compared with a short-term strategy (<12 months) among 2,082 patients undergoing bifurcation stenting (adjusted HR 0.21; 95% CI [0.13–0.35]; p<0.001; and adjusted HR 0.08; 95% CI [0.01–0.43]; p=0.003, respectively). Interestingly, the beneficial role of prolonged DAPT was not significantly affected by lesion location (LM bifurcation) or stenting technique (one or two-stent technique).39

However, in a study by Rhee et al., extension of DAPT (≥12 months) seemed more beneficial to patients undergoing LM bifurcation PCI with implantation of two stents, as the selection of a two-stent strategy was related with higher rates of both TLF and thrombotic adverse cardiovascular events compared with a one-stent strategy in the subgroup of short-term DAPT (<12 months; HR 11.45; 95% CI [2.73–47.95]; p=0.001 for TLF; and HR 7.84; 95% CI [2.11–29.22]; p=0.002 for thrombotic adverse cardiovascular events).40

Similar conclusions regarding the optimal DAPT duration can be drawn from the multicenter Euro Bifurcation Club – P2BiTO – registry. In a 2-year follow-up period, an increased incidence of MACE was observed in the short-term DAPT group (<6 months) compared with the long-term (>12 months) and the intermediate groups (6–12 months; 14% versus 10% and 10% respectively, HR 0.72; 95% CI [0.64–0.82]; p<0.001). The difference in results remained unchanged after adjustment for clinical and angiographic characteristics (HR 0.66; 95% CI [0.58–0.77]; p<0.001). MACE-free survival was significantly lower in the group of DAPT duration <6 months (log-rank 29.5, p<0.001).41 Furthermore, results from the PRODIGY trial showed that 24-month DAPT was associated with lower occurrence of ST compared with the 6-month arm only in patients with LM or proximal LAD disease (2.8 versus 5.6%; HR 0.45; 95% CI [0.23–0.89]; p=0.02), but not in patients with other lesions, with a highly significant interaction testing (p for interaction=0.002).42

In a different approach, triple antiplatelet therapy by adding cilostazol to DAPT provided no additional long-term benefit in real-world patients undergoing bifurcation PCI. Patients on cilostazol had more comorbidities; however, no statistically significant difference was observed regarding TLF (adjusted HR 0.86; 95% CI [0.53–1.39]; p=0.53) or other outcomes (death, cardiac death, MI, ST, TVR, or cerebrovascular accident).43

Novel P2Y12 receptor inhibitors provide more potent and consistent antiplatelet action, and may be useful in higher thrombotic burden procedures, including bifurcation PCI, at the expense of higher bleeding risk. In this context, there is a tendency in favor of ticagrelor and prasugrel over clopidogrel in patients with both high ischemic and low bleeding risk, although such an approach has not been established. D’Ascenzo et al. investigated the clinical outcomes following PCI with implantation of thin stents (<100 microns) in unprotected LM stenosis or main coronary bifurcation lesions in relation to DAPT duration. The primary endpoint included cardiovascular death, MI, TVR, and ST. Clopidogrel was the most common antiplatelet prescribed. Ticagrelor was administered in 31.3% of the total study population, while prasugrel was administered in 6.2% of the total study population. At a mean follow-up of 12.8 months, MACE occurred significantly more often in the short DAPT arm of ≤3 months, compared with the 3–12-month and 12-month groups (9.4 versus 4.0 versus 7.2%; p<0.001), a difference mainly driven by MI (4.4 versus 1.5 versus 3%; p<0.001) and overall ST (4.3 versus 1.5 versus 1.8%, p<0.001). Of note, in contrast to provisional stenting, a two-stent strategy was an independent predictor of MACE (OR 1.6; 95% CI [1.1–2.3]) at multivariate analysis and ST (OR 3.241; 95% CI [1.048–10.026]) after DAPT cessation. Regarding antiplatelets, the risk of ST was significantly higher in the 3-month group irrespective of the regimen used (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor).44

In contrast, the results from a smaller single-center retrospective cohort study argue in favor of ticagrelor as part of DAPT during the first year of post-bifurcation PCI. Among 584 patients treated for bifurcation lesions, a higher incidence of MACE was observed in patients on DAPT with clopidogrel (34/283 patients; 12.01%) in comparison with ticagrelor (22/270; 8.15%) with an adjusted HR of 0.488 (95% CI [0.277–0.861]; p=0.013) in favor of ticagrelor. Of interest, patients treated with ticagrelor tended to have a higher proportion of true bifurcation lesions, LM disease, and higher SYNTAX score. In contrast, clopidogrel was more commonly used in patients with LAD/diagonal PCI. As expected, ticagrelor was associated with a higher incidence of total bleeding events (adjusted HR 1.791; 95% CI [1.214–2.644], p=0.003), although major bleeding rates were similar between the two DAPT strategies (2.47% and 2.96% for the clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively; adjusted HR 0.972; 95% CI [0.321–2.941]; p=0.960).45

PROMETHEUS was an observational study that compared clopidogrel versus prasugrel in patients undergoing PCI in the setting of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The study population was divided into a non-complex or complex PCI group; the latter including stenting LM (6.9%) or bifurcation lesions (20.1%). Prasugrel was used in almost one-fifth of the patients. Of note, its use declined with rising PCI complexity. In general, 1-year MACE rates were significantly higher in the complex PCI arm. Compared with clopidogrel, prasugrel reduced the adjusted risk for 1-year MACE in the complex PCI group (HR 0.79; 95% CI [0.68–0.92]), but not in the non-complex PCI group (HR 0.91; 95% CI [0.77–1.08]), albeit there was no evidence of interaction (p interaction=0.281).46 Of note, bifurcation PCI was one of the main parameters associated with a greater absolute risk reduction of ST (3.2%) in the prasugrel arm compared with the clopidogrel arm in the TRITON-TIMI trial.47

In the context of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, Kogame et al. compared the experimental treatment strategy of 1-month DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin followed by 23 months of ticagrelor monotherapy with the standard antiplatelet treatment (12 months of DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy), focusing on patients undergoing bifurcation PCI. The latter group presented similar incidence of the primary endpoint (all-cause death or new Q wave MI) compared with undergoing non-bifurcation PCI (4.7 versus 4.0%, p=0.083), although bifurcation stenting was related with an increased need for revascularization (11.21 versus 9.19; HR 1.24; 95% CI [1.09–1.41]; p=0.001). However, the experimental treatment failed to provide a significant benefit in terms of ischemic outcomes, while the presence or absence of a bifurcation lesion did not seem to impact on its effect regarding the primary endpoint (bifurcation: HR 0.74; 95% CI [0.51–1.07]; non-bifurcation: HR 0.90; 95% CI [0.76–1.07], p for interaction=0.343).48

Finally, in the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study, patients were randomized to ticagrelor monotherapy or DAPT after 3 months of index MI. LM PCI and bifurcation with two stents implanted represented 15.1% and 21.4% of complex PCI patients (2,342 patients in total). Among the whole spectrum of patients undergoing complex PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin resulted in lower rates of the primary endpoint of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (4.2% versus 7.7%; absolute risk difference 3.5%; HR 0.54; 95% CI [0.38–0.76]) and BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (1.1% versus 2.6%; absolute risk difference 1.5%; HR 0.41; 95% CI [0.21–0.80]), without compromising efficacy (3.8% versus 4.9%; HR 0.77; 95% CI [0.52–1.15] for the composite of death, MI, or stroke; and 0.4% versus 0.8%; HR 0.56; 95% CI [0.19–1.67] for ST).49

The aforementioned trials highlight that the extension of DAPT beyond 12 months seems an appealing strategy toward reduction of thrombotic risk in this subset of patients provided a careful consideration of individual bleeding tendency. Regarding the antiplatelet agent of choice, there are some data supporting the use of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors instead of clopidogrel, although more evidence is required. However, longer DAPT (12–24 months) or use of novel P2Y12 inhibitors seems more reasonable for patients with bifurcation disease treated with a two-stent technique.26,40,44,45 Recently, Zimarino et al. proposed an algorithm regarding antithrombotic treatment in patients undergoing bifurcation PCI. Clinical presentation, baseline bleeding risk, stenting strategy, and possible use of intracoronary imaging are among the factors that should be taken into account for decision-making in this high-risk population.29

High-bleeding-risk Patients

Although assessment of bleeding risk is a challenging task, it seems to significantly affect decision-making regarding the type and duration of antiplatelet therapy, even in patients undergoing PCI for LM/bifurcation disease, considered to be at higher ischemic risk. Validated scores estimating bleeding risk, such as the PRECISE-DAPT and PARIS score, can be used to tailor the treatment strategy, whereas a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (HBR) defined major and minor criteria to characterize a HBR patient undergoing PCI.50–52 Recently, two prognostic models were developed to evaluate the trade-off between high thrombotic and bleeding risk, aiding toward a more personalized treatment approach.53 Interestingly, in a study by Costa et al., HBR patients (defined as PRECISE-DAPT ≥25) undergoing a complex procedure, including bifurcation stenting, did not seem to benefit from long-term DAPT (12 or 24 months) in terms of ischemic or mortality risk reduction, a fact highlighting that in cases of both elevated ischemic and hemorrhagic risk, the latter should primarily guide treatment strategy. Consequently, a DAPT of shorter duration (3 or 6 months) could be appropriate, providing careful consideration of individual clinical and angiographic factors.54

Factors Affecting Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Undergoing Left Main and/or Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Article image

Furthermore, recent evidence supports an even shortened DAPT duration (1–3 months) with newer-generation drug-eluting stents, such as Synergy (Boston Scientific) bioabsorbable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent or Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) zotarolimus-eluting stent, in the HBR population, without compromising efficacy.55,56 Of note, in the Onyx One study comparing Resolute Onyx with a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent, the former was not inferior regarding safety and effectiveness in HBR patients receiving single antiplatelet therapy after 1 month of DAPT; notably, the majority of patients were treated for complex type B2/C lesions, while up to 16% of total patients had bifurcation PCI.57 Regarding12 inhibitors have been associated with a higher incidence of bleeding complications compared with clopidogrel; thus, their role in this subset of patients is limited.7,58

Perspectives

Both European and US guidelines include bifurcation with two stents implanted as a high-risk feature for ischemic events, among other characteristics of PCI complexity, suggesting that a longer duration of DAPT (≥ 6 months) may be considered in patients with chronic coronary syndromes.7,33,59 In recently published guidelines regarding ACS, a prolonged DAPT duration (≥12 months) is a class IIa recommendation in patients without increased risk of major or life-threatening bleeding.8 Regarding the choice of antiplatelet agent in the setting of ACS, ticagrelor or prasugrel are recommended over clopidogrel due to their proven superior efficacy with a class I recommendation.7 In contrast, clopidogrel is still the preferred agent in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and PCI, while potent inhibitors may be considered with a class IIb recommendation at least as initial therapy, in specific high-risk situations of elective stenting, such as complex left main PCI or multivessel stenting.60 Interestingly, among patients who underwent complex PCI, a regimen of ticagrelor monotherapy (after an initial 3 months of DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin) was associated with significantly lower clinically relevant bleeding rates without increasing the risk of ischemic events in comparison with the continuation of DAPT, providing an alternative strategy to double therapy extension.49

Regarding intravenous antiplatelet agents, experts suggest that patients, not pretreated with oral P2Y12 inhibitors, undergoing complex PCI could be ideal candidates for cangrelor administration during index MI.61 Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors may still play an important therapeutic role in challenging clinical scenarios, such as revascularization of LM bifurcation, with the caveat of increased bleeding complications. Of note, the use of intracoronary bolus tirofiban may represent an effective and safe strategy to achieve rapid thrombus resolution in ACS patients with complex coronary anatomy.62 In summary, there is a particular interest regarding antithrombotic therapy type and duration in this subset of patients, with decision-making mostly based on clinical presentation, baseline bleeding, and ischemic risk, as well as the performed stenting strategy. Factors affecting antithrombotic treatment in patients undergoing LM and/or bifurcation PCI are shown in Figure 2.29,52,63

Conclusion

In the recent era of second-generation DES, PCI is gaining ground over CABG in revascularization of LM-CAD and complex bifurcation lesions. Optimal antithrombotic treatment has yet to be defined, though; prolonged DAPT has shown some benefit regarding adverse cardiovascular events, with a caveat of potentially increased bleeding rates. Additionally, selecting a more potent P2Y12 inhibitor seems to be a reasonable choice in patients with low hemorrhagic risk, although more randomized studies and data are required to support their use in selected patients.

References

  1. Zalewska-Adamiec M, Bachórzewska-Gajewska H, Paweł K et al. Prognosis in patients with left main coronary artery disease managed surgically, percutaneously or medically: a long-term follow-up. Kardiol Pol 2013;71:787–95.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Collet C, Capodanno D, Onuma Y, et al. Left main coronary artery disease: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Nat Rev Cardiol 2018;15:321–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Ramadan R, Boden WE, Kinlay S. Management of left main coronary artery disease. J Am Heart Assoc 2018;7:e008151.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Staudacher DL, Schmitt C, Zirlik A, et al. Predictors of survival in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020;96:E27–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Naganuma T, Chieffo A, Meliga E, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for ostial/mid-shaft lesions versus distal bifurcation lesions in unprotected left main coronary artery: the DELTA Registry (drug-eluting stent for left main coronary artery disease): a multicenter registry evaluating percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main treatment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6:1242–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Yeh RW, Kereiakes DJ, Steg PG, et al. Lesion complexity and outcomes of extended dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:2213–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: The Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2018;39:213–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2021;42:1289–1367.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Chen SL, Sheiban I, Xu B, et al. Impact of the complexity of bifurcation lesions treated with drug-eluting stents: the DEFINITION study (Definitions and impact of complEx biFurcation lesIons on clinical outcomes after percutaNeous coronary IntervenTIOn using drug-eluting steNts). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:1266–76.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Ragosta M. Left main coronary artery disease: importance, diagnosis, assessment, and management. Curr Probl Cardiol 2015;40:93–126.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2016;375:2223–35.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Makikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016;388:2743–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Buszman PE, Buszman PP, Banasiewicz-Szkróbka I, et al. Left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization: 10-year outcomes of the (Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting) LE MANS Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:318–27.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Thuijs DJFM, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial. Lancet 2019 12;394:1325–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Boudriot E, Thiele H, Walther T, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:538–45.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Ahn JM, Roh JH, Kim YH, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: 5-year outcomes of the PRECOMBAT study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:2198–206.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Stone GW, Kappetein AP, Sabik JF, et al. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1820–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Holm NR, Mäkikallio T, Lindsay MM, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial. Lancet 2020;395:191–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Ahmad Y, Howard JP, Arnold AD, et al. Mortality after drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3228–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:e44–164.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Mori H, Kutys R, Torii S, et al. Pathological features of left main stent thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;6(11 Suppl 2)9:1151.
    Crossref
  22. Hachinohe D, Mitomo S, Candilio L, et al. A practical approach to assessing stent results with IVUS or OCT. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J 2018;14:32–41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Wang J, Guan C, Chen J, et al. Validation of bifurcation DEFINITION criteria and comparison of stenting strategies in true left main bifurcation lesions. Sci Rep 2020;10:10461.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Chen SL, Zhang JJ, Han Y, et al. Double kissing crush versus provisional stenting for left main distal bifurcation lesions: DKCRUSH-V randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:2605–17.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Zimarino M, Briguori C, Amat-Santos IJ, et al. Mid-term outcomes after percutaneous interventions in coronary bifurcations. Int J Cardiol 2019;283:78–83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Giustino G, Chieffo A, Palmerini T, et al. Efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy after complex PCI. J Am Coll Cardiol 25;68:1851–64.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Weisz G, et al. Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study. Lancet 2013;382:614–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Mohamed MO, Polad J, Hildick-Smith D, et al. Impact of coronary lesion complexity in percutaneous coronary intervention: one-year outcomes from the large, multicentre e-Ultimaster registry. EuroIntervention 2020;16:603–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Zimarino M, Angiolillo DJ, Dangas G, et al. Antithrombotic therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions. EuroIntervention 2021;17:59–66.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Zarandi MM, Mongrain R, Bertrand OF. Determination of flow conditions in coronary bifurcation lesions in the context of the medina classification. Modelling and Simulation in Engineering 2012;419087.
    Crossref
  31. Hu ZY, Chen SL, Zhang JJ, et al. Distribution and magnitude of shear stress after coronary bifurcation lesions stenting with the classical crush technique: a new predictor for in-stent restenosis. J Interv Cardiol 2010;23:330–40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Lassen JF, Burzotta F, Banning AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for the left main stem and other bifurcation lesions. The 12th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention 2018;13:1540–53.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019;40:87–165.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Gao Z, Xu B, Yang Y, et al. Comparison between one-stent versus two-stent technique for treatment of left main bifurcation lesions: a large single-center data. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2015;85:1132–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Chen SL, Zhang Y, Xu B, et al. Five-year clinical follow-up of unprotected left main bifurcation lesion stenting: one-stent versus two-stent techniques versus double-kissing crush technique. EuroIntervention 2012;8:803–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Chen SL, Xu B, Han YL, et al. Clinical outcome after DK crush versus culotte stenting of distal left main bifurcation lesions: the 3-year follow-up results of the DKCRUSH-III study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8:1335–42.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Koh YS, Kim PJ, Chang K, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of the one-stent technique versus the two-stent technique for non-left main true coronary bifurcation disease in the era of drug-eluting stents. J Interv Cardiol 2013;26:245–53.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Takagi K, Naganuma T, Chieffo A, et al. Comparison between 1- and 2-stent strategies in unprotected distal left main disease: the Milan and New-Tokyo registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:e003359.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Jang WJ, Ahn SG, Song YB, et al. Benefit of prolonged dual anti- platelet therapy after implantation of drug-eluting stent for coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry II. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2018;11:e005849.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Rhee TM, Park KW, Kim CH, et al. Dual antiplatelet therapy duration determines outcome after 2- but not 1-stent strategy in left main bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018;11:2453–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Di Serafino L, Gamra H, Cirillo P, et al. Impact of dual antiplatelet therapy duration on clinical outcome after stent implantation for coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the Euro Bifurcation Club – P2BiTO – registry. Eur Heart J 2019;40(Suppl 1):ehz748.0709.
    Crossref
  42. Costa F, Adamo M, Ariotti S, et al. Left main or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery disease location identifies high-risk patients deriving potentially greater benefit from prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy duration. EuroIntervention 2016;11:e1222–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Song PS, Song YB, Yang JH, et al. Triple versus dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the COBIS (COronary BIfurcation Stent) II Registry. Heart Vessels 2015;30:458–68.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. D’Ascenzo F, Barbero U, Abdirashid M, et al. Incidence of adverse events at 3 months versus at 12 months after dual antiplatelet therapy cessation in patients treated with thin stents with unprotected left main or coronary bifurcations. Am J Cardiol 2020;125:491–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Zheng W, Li Y, Tian J, et al. Effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Biomed Res Int 2019;20:3170957.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Chandrasekhar J, Baber U, Sartori S, et al. Associations between complex PCI and prasugrel or clopidogrel use in patients with acute coronary syndrome who undergo PCI: from the PROMETHEUS study. Can J Cardiol 2018;34:319–29.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Intensive oral antiplatelet therapy for reduction of ischaemic events including stent thrombosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting in the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial: a subanalysis of a randomised trial. Lancet 2008;371:1353–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Kogame N, Chichareon P, De Wilder K, et al. Clinical relevance of ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy after bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention: insight from GLOBAL LEADERS trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020;96:100–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Dangas G, Baber U, Sharma S, et al. Ticagrelor with or without aspirin after complex PCI. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;75:2414–24.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Camarero TG, de la Torre Hernández JM. Antithrombotic treatment after coronary intervention: agreement and controversy. Eur Cardiol 2020;15:1–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Baber U, Mehran R, Giustino G, et al. Coronary thrombosis and major bleeding after PCI with drug-eluting stents: risk scores from PARIS. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67:2224–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Urban P, Mehran R, Colleran R, et al. Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2019;140:240–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Urban P, Gregson J, Owen R, et al. Assessing the risks of bleeding vs thrombotic events in patients at high bleeding risk after coronary stent implantation: the ARC-High Bleeding Risk Trade-off Model. JAMA Cardiol 2021;6:e206814.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Costa F, Van Klaveren D, Feres F, et al. Dual antiplatelet therapy duration based on ischemic and bleeding risks after coronary stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;73:741–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Kirtane AJ, Stoler R, Feldman R, et al. Primary results of the EVOLVE Short DAPT study: evaluation of 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy in high bleeding risk patients treated with a bioabsorbable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2021;14:101044;
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Kandzari DE, Kirtane AJ, Windecker S, et al. One-month dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention with zotarolimus-eluting stents in high-bleeding-risk patients. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2020;13:e009565.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Windecker S, Latib A, Kedhi E, et al. Polymer-based or polymer-free stents in patients at high bleeding Risk. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1208–18.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Gragnano F, Moscarella E, Calabrò P, et al. Clopidogrel versus ticagrelor in high-bleeding risk patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes: insights from the multicenter START-ANTIPLATELET registry. Intern Emerg Med 2021;16:379–87.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, et al. 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68:1082–115.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2020;41:407–77.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Capodanno D, Milluzzo RP, Angiolillo DJ. Intravenous antiplatelet therapies (glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors and cangrelor) in percutaneous coronary intervention: from pharmacology to indications for clinical use. Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis 2019;13:1753944719893274.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Wilmer CI. Intracoronary high-dose bolus tirofiban administration during complex coronary interventions: a United States-based case series. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2018;19:112–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Schüpke S, Neumann FJ, Menichelli M, et al. Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1524–34.
    Crossref | PubMed