Clinical outcomes following bioresorbable scaffold implantation for bifurcation lesions: Overall outcomes and comparison between provisional and planned double stenting strategy

The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes of patients treated with a provisional stenting (PS) versus a double stenting (DS) strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS). There are limited data available with regards to outcomes following BRS implantation for bifurcation lesions. A total of 132 bifurcation lesions treated with BRS between 2012 and 2014 were analyzed. Of the total of 132 bifurcation lesions, 10 lesions were treated without crossover stenting. 99 lesions (81%) were treated with a PS strategy and 23 lesions (19%) with a DS strategy. The DS group consisted of patients with a greater number of true bifurcation lesions (PS 52.0% vs. DS 91.3%: P < 0.001). In the PS group, seven lesions (7.1%) were crossed‐over to T‐stenting. In the DS group, 13 lesions (57%) were treated with BRS to the side branch (SB). A hybrid stenting technique BRS to the main branch, and metallic drug‐eluting stent (DES) to the SB] was utilized in 10 (43%) lesions. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates were 5.5% for PS and 11.2% for DS (P = 0.49) at 1‐year follow‐up. Definite scaffold thrombosis did not occur at the site of any bifurcation lesion. These findings suggest that BRS implantation for bifurcation lesions is technically feasible. The rates of TLR tended to be higher in the DS group compared to when a PS strategy was employed. Larger studies are eagerly awaited to determine longer‐term follow‐up of this treatment strategy. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.