Patients with non-left-main coronary bifurcation lesions are usually best treated with a stepwise provisional approach. However, patients with true left main stem bifurcation lesions have been shown in one dedicated randomized study to benefit from systematic dual stent implantation. Four hundred and sixty-seven patients with true left main stem bifurcation lesions requiring intervention were recruited to the EBC MAIN study in 11 European countries. Patients were aged 71 ± 10 years; 77% were male. Patients were randomly allocated to a stepwise layered provisional strategy (n = 230) or a systematic dual stent approach (n = 237). The primary endpoint (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 12 months) occurred in 14.7% of the stepwise provisional group vs. 17.7% of the systematic dual stent group (hazard ratio 0.8, 95% confidence interval 0.5–1.3; P = 0.34). Secondary endpoints were death (3.0% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.48), myocardial infarction (10.0% vs. 10.1%, P = 0.91), target lesion revascularization (6.1% vs. 9.3%, P = 0.16), and stent thrombosis (1.7% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.90), respectively. Procedure time, X-ray dose and consumables favoured the stepwise provisional approach. Symptomatic improvement was excellent and equal in each group. Among patients with true bifurcation left main stem stenosis requiring intervention, fewer major adverse cardiac events occurred with a stepwise layered provisional approach than with planned dual stenting, although the difference was not statistically significant. The stepwise provisional strategy should remain the default for distal left main stem bifurcation intervention. http://clinicaltrials.gov NCT02497014. Compared with a dual stent strategy, numerically (but not statistically) fewer major adverse cardiac events occurred with the stepwise provisional approach.

Introduction: Device entrapment is a life‐threatening complication during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the success for its management is predominantly based on operator experience with limited available guidance in the published literature.Methods: A systematic review was performed on December 2021; we searched PubMed for articles on device entrapment during PCI. In addition, backward snowballing (i.e., review of references from identified articles and pertinent reviews) was employed.Results: A total of 4209 articles were retrieved, of which 150 studies were included in the synthesis of the data. A methodical algorithmic approach to prevention and management of device entrapment can help to optimize outcomes. The recommended sequence of steps are as follows: (a) pulling, (b) trapping, (c) snaring, (d) plaque modification, (e) telescoping, and (f) surgery.Conclusions: In‐depth knowledge of the techniques and necessary tools can help optimize the likelihood of successful equipment retrieval and minimization of complications.

Uncrossable lesions are those that cannot be crossed with a balloon after successful guidewire crossing. These lesions are challenging and are commonly encountered in tortuous and calcified arteries as well as chronic total occlusions. They are the second most common barrier to successful PCI in CTO intervention after inability to cross the CTO segment with a guidewire. Procedures involving balloon uncrossable lesions during routine and CTO PCI utilise longer procedural times, radiation dose and contrast volumes with a lower likelihood of procedural success. In this article, we describe a pragmatic approach of managing balloon uncrossable lesions utilising the most contemporary equipment available in an algorithmic fashion beginning with simple, cost effective techniques right up to complex strategies for advanced operators. In addition, some of these lesions, even when crossed by any technique, they may remain difficult to dilate and prepare for stent insertion. We describe an approach of how to manage these undilatable lesions.

BACKGROUND: The optimal coronary stenting technique for true left main bifurcation lesions is uncertain. EBC MAIN (European Bifurcation Club Left Main Trial) aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of a stepwise provisional strategy compared with a systematic dual-stent approach. METHODS: EBC MAIN was a randomized, investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, parallel-group trial conducted across 35 hospitals in 11 European countries. A total of 467 participants undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected true left main bifurcation lesions were randomly assigned to the stepwise provisional strategy (n=230) or an upfront dual-stent approach (n=237). The mean (SD) age was 71 (10) years and 23% of participants were women. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events, defined as all-cause mortality, all myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee and all analyses were by the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: At 3 years, the primary end point occurred in 54 of 230 (23.5%) stepwise provisional and 70 of 237 (29.5%) dual-stent patients (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.53–1.07]; P =0.11). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (10.0% versus 13.1%) or myocardial infarction (12.2% versus 11.0%). However, target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the stepwise provisional group (8.3% versus 15.6%; hazard ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.29–0.86]; P =0.013). In this population, the mean side vessel diameter by quantitative angiography was 2.9 mm, and median side vessel lesion length was 5 mm. Significant interactions were identified between the assigned bifurcation strategy and both side vessel diameter and lesion length with respect to the primary outcome ( P =0.009 and P =0.005, respectively), with smaller vessels (<3.25 mm diameter) and shorter lesions (<10 mm length) favoring the provisional approach. CONCLUSIONS: In a European population with true left main stem bifurcation coronary disease requiring intervention, there was no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events between stepwise provisional and systematic dual-stent strategies at 3 years. Target lesion revascularization was significantly less frequent with the stepwise provisional approach, which should be the default strategy for noncomplex left main bifurcation coronary intervention. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02497014.

The aim of this clinical research was to investigate the effects of Pressure-controlled intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion (PiCSO) on infarct size at 5 days after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This comparative study was carried out in four UK hospitals. Forty-five patients with anterior STEMI presenting within 12 h of symptom onset received pPCI plus PiCSO (initiated after reperfusion; n = 45) and were compared with a propensity score-matched control cohort from INFUSE-AMI (n = 80). Infarct size (% of LV mass, median [interquartile range]) measured by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) at day 5 was significantly lower in the PiCSO group (14.3% [95% CI 9.2-19.4%] vs. 21.2% [95% CI 18.0-24.4%]; p = 0.023). There were no major adverse cardiac events (MACE) related to the PiCSO intervention. PiCSO, as an adjunct to pPCI, was associated with a lower infarct size at 5 days after anterior STEMI in a propensity score-matched population.