Objectives: We set out to investigate the benefit of distal main or side branch treatment with a DCB compared to POBA in coronary bifurcation lesions.
Background: The standard treatment of bifurcation lesions is application of a DES to the main branch with provisional side branch stenting. While this resulted in considerable improvement in overall MACE rate suboptimal side branch results remained a problem.
Methods: The study was performed from 2011 to 2013 in six German centers. Native bifurcation lesions were included if side branch vessel diameter was ≥2 and ≤3.5 mm and no proximal main branch lesions was found. After successful predilatation randomization was performed to either DCB application or no further treatment. Follow-up angiograms for QCA analysis were done after 9 months. Primary endpoint was late lumen loss (LLL).
Results: 64 patients were successfully randomized. Minimal lumen diameter and grade of stenosis were equal in both groups. Only five stents were used as bail out. Angiographic follow-up was achieved in 75 % of patients. No patient died. There was one NSTEMI in the POBA group. Restenosis rate was 6 % in the DCB group vs 26 % in the POBA group (p = 0.045). TLR was necessary in one patient of the DCB group vs three patients of the POBA. The primary endpoint LLL was 0.13 mm in the DCB vs 0.51 mm in the POBA group (p = 0.013).
Conclusion: In bifurcation lesions that show only class A or B dissection and recoil not beyond 30 % the use of DCBs is a sound strategy.
Keywords: Coronary bifurcation lesions; Drug-coated balloon (DCB); PCI.