We investigated whether routine T-stenting reduces restenosis of the side branch as compared with provisional T-stenting in patients with de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. Our randomized study assigned 101 patients with a coronary bifurcation lesion to routine T-stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in both branches and 101 patients to provisional T-stenting with SES placement in the main branch followed by kissing-balloon angioplasty and provisional SES placement in the side branch only for inadequate results. Primary endpoint was per cent diameter stenosis of the side branch at 9 month angiographic follow-up. Angiographic follow-up in 192 (95%) patients revealed a per cent stenosis of the side branch of 23.0 ± 20.2% after provisional T-stenting (19% with side-branch stent) and of 27.7 ± 24.8% (P = 0.15) after routine T-stenting (98.2% with side-branch stent). The corresponding binary restenosis rates were 9.4 and 12.5% (P = 0.32), prompting re-intervention in 5.0 and 7.9% (P = 0.39), respectively. In the main branch, binary restenosis rates were 7.3% after provisional and 3.1% after routine T-stenting (P = 0.17). The overall 1 year incidence of target lesion re-intervention was 10.9% after provisional and 8.9% after routine T-stenting (P = 0.64). Routine T-stenting with SES did not improve the angiographic outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention of coronary bifurcation lesions as compared with stenting of the main branch followed by kissing-balloon angioplasty and provisional side-branch stenting.

Background: Data regarding the use of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting balloons (DEB) versus thin-strut drug-eluting stents (thin-DES) for treating DES in-stent restenosis in everyday clinical practice is scarce. Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of DEB versus thin-DES in DES in-stent restenosis. Methods: Consecutive patients with DES in-stent restenosis who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention between 2008 and 2019 entered the multicenter DEB-DRAGON Registry with a follow-up of 3 years. Patients who received DEB at the index procedure (n=557, 49.9%) were compared with those who received thin-DES (n=560, 50.1%). Results: Analysis of the unmatched cohort revealed lower rates of target lesion revascularization (9.1% versus 13.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.41–0.83], P =0.003), target vessel revascularization (11.8% versus 16.7%; HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45–0.84], P =0.003) and device-oriented composite end point, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel myocardial infarction (12.7% versus 16.0%; HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.50–0.94], P =0.018) in the thin-DES group compared with the DEB group. The incidence of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction, and myocardial infarction were similar in both groups. However, after propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in target lesion revascularization (11.2% versus 11.2%; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.55–1.51], P =0.707), target vessel revascularization (13.4% versus 14.2%; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.55–1.36], P =0.523), and device-oriented composite end point (14.2% versus 14.2%; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.58–1.42], P =0.667) between the thin-DES and DEB group, respectively. Conclusions: This analysis of a real-life registry revealed similar long-term outcomes of thin-DES and DEB in DES in-stent restenosis regarding target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and device-oriented composite end point. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04415216.

In order to improve the percutaneous treatment of coronary artery calcifications (CAC) before stent implantation, methods such as rotational atherectomy (RA), orbital atherectomy (OA), and coronary intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) were invented. These techniques use different mechanisms of action and therefore have various short- and long-term outcomes. IVL employs sonic waves to modify CAC, whereas RA and OA use a rapidly rotating burr or crown. These methods have specific advantages and limitations, regarding their cost-efficiency, the movement of the device, their usefulness given the individual anatomy of both the lesion and the vessel, and the risk of specified complications. This study reviews the key findings of peer-reviewed articles available on Google Scholar with the keywords RA, OA, and IVL. Based on the collected data, successful stent delivery was assessed as 97.7% for OA, 92.4% for IVL, and 92.5% for RA, and 30-day prevalence of MACE (Major Adverse Cardiac Events) in OA—10.4%, IVL—7.2%, and RA—5%. There were no significant differences in the 1-year MACE. Compared to RA, OA and IVL are cost-effective approaches, but this is substantially dependent on the reimbursement system of the particular country. There is no standard method of CAC modification; therefore, a tailor-made approach is required.