Management of Bifurcation Culprit Lesion in the Setting of Anterior ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Abstract

Introduction: Coronary bifurcation lesions are considered one of the challenging entities in the field of coronary intervention due to the risk of side branch loss and higher risk of stent thrombosis. However, there is limited data about the proper management of such lesions in the setting of myocardial infarction as most bifurcation lesion studies excluded patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital and mid-term outcomes of single-stent and two-stents strategy in the management of bifurcation culprit lesions in patients presenting with anterior STEMI. Methods: This retrospective multi-center study included all patients presented with anterior STEMI who underwent primary PCI between January 2017 and December 2019, coronary angiography showed true bifurcation lesion with sizable side branch that can be managed by stenting. Patients with left main bifurcation, those indicated for urgent CABG, and patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded. Included patients were divided into two groups according to the stenting strategy either single or two stents. Six months follow up data were collected by telephone calls and by examination of medical records. Results: Out of 1355 anterior STEMI patients presented between January 2017 and December 2019, 158 patients (11.6%) were identified to have bifurcation culprit lesions with a sizable diagonal branch. 93 patients (59%) were treated by single stent while 65 patients (41%) were managed by two-stents strategy. The baseline characteristics and angiographic findings were similar in both groups except for higher side branch involvement in the two stents group (83.31%±11.20 vs 71.88%±15.05, t= -5.39, p <0.001). Mean fluoroscopy time (23.96±8.90 vs 17.81±5.72 mins) and contrast volume (259.23± 59.45 vs 232.58± 96.18 ml) were significantly higher in two stents group than single stent group (p=0.049). However, the angiographic success rates (residual stenosis ≤30% and restoration of TIMI flow grade II or III) were comparable (96.8% vs 99%, MCp=0.151). There is no significant difference in the overall incidence rate of MACE in both groups 6 months following the index procedure (13.9 % vs 16.9%, FEp=0.698), with no difference between different bifurcation stenting techniques in patients managed with two stents. Conclusion: Although two stents strategy in the setting of STEMI is much complex with more fluoroscopy time and contrast volume, the procedural success rate and the incidence of MACE were comparable to one stent strategy, on medium-term follow up.