Treatment of Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions

  • Yves Louvard
  • Thierry Lefèvre


Optimal treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions is still the subject of debate.

Balloon angioplasty for this type of lesion used to be associated with a significant risk of acute complications compounded by a high risk of recurrent stenosis. With the advent of bare stents, the first controversies arose as to whether one or several stents should be used to treat these lesions. The outcome of various nonrandomized studies demonstrated the benefit of implementing a single-stent strategy whereby a stent is implanted in the main branch across the SB.

Drug-eluting stents allowed a considerable reduction in the risk of restenosis and repeat interventions while encouraging the development of numerous complex techniques permitting complete bifurcation coverage.

However, the results of large randomized studies confirmed the absence of benefits and even, in some instances, the inferiority of complex strategies compared with provisional SB stenting.

Recent comparative studies focusing on the most proximal coronary bifurcation, namely, the distal left main, have shown that PCI seems to be as efficient and safe as bypass surgery in this setting.

Over the past few years, a large number of stents dedicated to the treatment of bifurcation lesions have been developed with the main objective of allowing treatment of these complex lesions by all operators. The first randomized study comparing a dedicated device to a provisional side branch stenting approach using workhorse stents is currently underway.


Stent Thrombosis Side Branch Fractional Flow Reserve Bifurcation Lesion Coronary Bifurcation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Kassab GS (2005) Functional hierarchy of coronary circulation: direct evidence of a structure-function relation. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 289(6):H2559–H2565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kassab GS (2007) Design of coronary circulation: the minimum energy hypothesis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196:3033–3042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kamiya A, Takahashi T (2007) Quantitative assessments of morphological and functional properties of biological trees based on their fractal nature. J Appl Physiol 102(6):2315–2323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murray CD (1926) The physiological principle of minimum work: I. The vascular system and the cost of blood volume. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 12:207–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huo Y, Kassab GS (2009) A scaling law of vascular volume. Biophys J 96(2):347–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Finet G, Gilard M, Perrenot B et al (2008) Fractal geometry of cornary bifurcations: a quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound analysis. EuroIntervention 3:490–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choy JS, Kassab GS (2008) Scaling of myocardial mass to flow and morphometry of coronary arteries. J Appl Physiol 104(5):1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Asakura T, Karino T (1990) Flow patterns and spatial distribution of atherosclerotic lesions in human coronary arteries. Circ Res 66(4):1045–1066PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chatzizisis YS, Jonas M, Coskun AU et al (2008) Prediction of the localization of high-risk coronary atherosclerotic plaques on the basis of low endothelial shear stress: an intravascular ultrasound and histopathology natural history study. Circulation 117(8):993–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joner M, Finn AV, Farb A, Mont EK et al (2006) Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk. J Am Coll Cardiol 48(1):193–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shimada Y, Courtney BK, Nakamura M et al (2006) Intravascular ultrasonic analysis of atherosclerotic vessel remodeling and plaque distribution of stenotic left anterior descending coronary arterial bifurcation lesions upstream and downstream of the side branch. Am J Cardiol 98(2):193–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Giessen AG, Wentzel JJ, Meijboom WB et al (2009) Plaque and shear stress distribution in human coronary bifurcations: a multislice computed tomography study. EuroIntervention 4(5):654–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Medina A, Martín P, de Suárez Lezo J et al (2011) Ultrasound study of the prevalence of plaque at the carina in lesions that affect the coronary bifurcation. Implications for treatment with provisional stent. Rev Esp Cardiol 64(1):43–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nakazawa G, Yazdani SK, Finn AV et al (2010) Pathological findings at bifurcation lesions: the impact of flow distribution on atherosclerosis and arterial healing after stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 55(16):1679–1687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ahmed JM, Mintz GS, Weissman NJ et al (2000) Mechanism of lumen enlargement during intracoronary stent implantation: an intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation 102(1):7–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koo BK, Waseda K, Kang HJ et al (2010) Anatomic and functional evaluation of bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 3(2):113–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saucedo JF, Mehran R, Dangas G et al (2000) Long-term clinical events following creatine kinase–myocardial band isoenzyme elevation after successful coronary stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol 35(5):1134–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bhargava B, Waksman R, Lansky AJ et al (2001) Clinical outcomes of compromised side branch [stent jail] after coronary stenting with the NIR stent. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 54:295–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Louvard Y, Thomas M, Dzavik V et al (2008) Classification of coronary artery bifurcation lesions and treatments: time for a consensus! Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 71(2):175–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koller P, Safian RD (1996) Bifurcation stenosis in manual of interventional cardiology. Physician’s Press, Birmingham, pp 229–241Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spokojny AM, Sanborn TM (1996) The bifurcation lesion. In: Ellis SG, Holmes DR (eds) Strategic approaches in coronary intervention. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, p 288Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Topol EJ (1999) Textbook of interventional cardiology, 3rd edn. W.B. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lefèvre T, Louvard Y, Morice MC et al (2000) Stenting of bifurcation lesions: classification, treatments, and results. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 49:274–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Safian RD (2001) Bifurcation lesions. In: Safian RD, Freed MS (eds) The manual of interventional cardiology. Physician’s Press, Royal Oak, p 222Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoye A, van Mieghem CA, Ong AT et al (2005) Treatment of de novo bifurcation lesions: a comparison of Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-eluting stents. EuroIntervention 1(1):24–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Medina A, de Suarez Lezo J, Pan M (2006) A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesions. Rev Esp Cardiol 59:183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Movahed MR, Stinis CT (2006) A new proposed simplified classification of coronary artery bifurcation lesions and bifurcation interventional techniques. J Invasive Cardiol 18:199–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andriotis A, Zifan A, Gavaises M et al (2008) A new method of three-dimensional coronary artery reconstruction from X-ray angiography: validation against a virtual phantom and multislice computed tomography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 71(1):28–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pflederer T, Ludwig J, Ropers D et al (2006) Measurement of coronary artery bifurcation angles by multidetector computed tomography. Invest Radiol 41(11):793–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lansky A, Tuinenburg J, Costa M, European Bifurcation Angiographic Sub-Committee et al (2009) Quantitative angiographic methods for bifurcation lesions: a consensus statement from the European Bifurcation Group. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 73(2):258–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goktekin O, Kaplan S, Dimopoulos K et al (2007) A new quantitative analysis system for the evaluation of coronary bifurcation lesions: comparison with current conventional methods. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 69(2):172–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ramcharitar S, Onuma Y, Aben JP et al (2008) A novel dedicated quantitative coronary analysis methodology for bifurcation analysis. EuroIntervention 3:553–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Holm NR, Højdahl H, Lassen JF et al (2011) Quantitative coronary analysis in the Nordic Bifurcation studies. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 27:175–180, Epub 2010 Oct 7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Furukawa E, Hibi K, Kosuge M, Nakatogawa T, Toda N, Takamura T, Tsukahara K, Okuda J, Ootsuka F, Tahara Y, Sugano T, Endo T, Kimura K, Umemura S (2005) Intravascular ultrasound predictors of side branch occlusion in bifurcation lesions after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ J 69(3):325–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oviedo C, Maehara A, Mintz GS, Tsujita K, Kubo T, Doi H, Castellanos C, Lansky AJ, Mehran R, Dangas G, Leon MB, Stone GW, Templin B, Araki H, Ochiai M, Moses JW (2010) Is accurate intravascular ultrasound evaluation of the left circumflex ostium from a left anterior descending to left main pullback possible? Am J Cardiol 105(7):948–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tyczynski P, Ferrante G, Moreno-Ambroj C, Kukreja N, Barlis P, Pieri E, De Silva R, Beatt K, Di Mario C (2010) Simple versus complex approaches to treating coronary bifurcation lesions: direct assessment of stent strut apposition by optical coherence tomography. Rev Esp Cardiol 63(8):904–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van Veer M, Klauss V, Manoharan G, Engstrøm T, Oldroyd KG, Ver Lee PN, MacCarthy PA, Fearon WF, FAME Study Investigators (2009) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 360(3):213–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sarno G, Garg S, Onuma Y et al (2010) Bifurcation lesions: functional assessment by fractional flow reserve vs. anatomical assessment using conventional and dedicated bifurcation quantitative coronary angiogram. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 76(6):817–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Louvard Y, Lefèvre T, Morice MC (2004) Percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation coronary disease. Heart 90(6):713–722, ReviewPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yamashita T, Nishida T, Adamian MG et al (2000) Bifurcation lesions: two stents versus one stent-immediate and follow-up results. J Am Coll Cardiol 35:1145–1151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Colombo A, Moses JW, Morice MC et al (2004) Randomized study to evaluate sirolimus-eluting stents implanted at coronary bifurcation lesions. Circulation 109:1244–1249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pan M, de Lezo JS, Medina A, Romero M et al (2004) Rapamycin-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcated coronary lesions: a randomized comparison of a simple versus complex strategy. Am Heart J 148(5):857–864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Steigen TK, Maeng M, Wiseth R, Erglis A et al (2006) Randomized study on simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: the Nordic bifurcation study. Nordic PCI Study Group. Circulation 114(18):1955–1961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ferenc M, Gick M, Kienzle RP, Bestehorn HP et al (2008) Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. Eur Heart J 29(23):2859–2867PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Colombo A, Bramucci E, Saccà S et al (2009) Randomized study of the crush technique versus provisional side-branch stenting in true coronary bifurcations: the CACTUS (Coronary Bifurcations: Application of the Crushing Technique Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stents) Study. Circulation 119(1):71–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hildick-Smith D, De Belder AJ, Cooter N et al (2010) Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: the British bifurcation coronary study: old, new, and evolving strategies. Circulation 121:1235–1243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chen SL, Santoso T, Zhang JJ, Ye F, Xu YW, Fu Q, Kan J, Paiboon C, Zhou Y, Ding SQ, Kwan TW (2011) A randomized clinical study comparing double kissing crush with provisional stenting for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions results from the DKCRUSH-II (double kissing crush versus provisional stenting technique for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 57(8):914–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cheng WJ, Zhou YJ, Zhao YX et al (2010) Randomized study on T stenting and small protrusion technique versus simple stenting for patients with coronary artery bifurcation lesions and with big size side branch. Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi 38(2):131–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Erglis A, Kumsars I, Niemelä M, Nordic PCI Study Group et al (2009) Randomized comparison of coronary bifurcation stenting with the crush versus the culotte technique using sirolimus eluting stents: the Nordic stent technique study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2(1):27–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pan M, Medina A, de Suárez Lezo J, Romero M, Segura J, Martín P, Hernández E, Mazuelos F, Moreno A, Pavlovic D, Ojeda S, Toledano F, Leon C (2011) Coronary bifurcation lesions treated with simple approach (from the Cordoba & Las Palmas [CORPAL] Kiss Trial). Am J Cardiol 107(10):1460–1465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Niemelä M, Kervinen K, Erglis A, Nordic-Baltic PCI Study Group et al (2011) Randomized comparison of final kissing balloon dilatation versus no final kissing balloon dilatation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with main vessel stenting: the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study III. Circulation 123(1):79–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pan M, de Suárez Lezo J, Medina A et al (2007) Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcation lesions: a randomized comparison between paclitaxel and sirolimus stents. Am Heart J 153(1):15.e1–15.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Iakovou I, Schmidt T, Bonizzoni E et al (2005) Incidence, predictors, and outcome of thrombosis after successful implantation of drug-eluting stents. JAMA 293(17):2126–2130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ong AT, McFadden EP, Regar E et al (2005) Late angiographic stent thrombosis (LAST) events with drug-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 45(12):2088–2092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kuchulakanti PK, Chu WW, Torguson R et al (2006) Correlates and long-term outcomes of angiographically proven stent thrombosis with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. Circulation 113(8):1108–1113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kozuma K, Ota Y, Nagai Y et al (2011) Clinical and angiographic outcomes with sirolimus-eluting stent for coronary bifurcation lesions. Circ J 75(2):306–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hakeem A, Khan FM, Bhatti S et al (2009) Provisional vs. complex stenting strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Invasive Cardiol 21(11):589–595Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Katritsis DG, Siontis GC, Ioannidis JP (2009) Double versus single stenting for coronary bifurcation lesions: a meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2(5):409–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brar SS, Gray WA, Dangas G et al (2009) Bifurcation stenting with drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. EuroIntervention 5(4):475–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Biondi-Zoccai G (2010) Duplicate meta-analyses on coronary bifurcation strategies: when more is less? EuroIntervention 6(2):181–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zhang F, Dong L, Ge J (2009) Simple versus complex stenting strategy for coronary artery bifurcation lesions in the drug-eluting stent era: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart 95(20):1676–1681, ReviewPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Behan MW, Holm NR, Curzen NP et al (2011) Simple or complex stenting for bifurcation coronary lesions: a patient-level pooled-analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 4:57–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Niccoli G, Ferrante G, Porto I et al (2010) Coronary bifurcation lesions: to stent one branch or both? A meta-analysis of patients treated with drug eluting stents. Int J Cardiol 139(1):80–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Athappan G, Ponniah T, Jeyaseelan L (2010) True coronary bifurcation lesions: meta-analysis and review of literature. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 11(2):103–110, reviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zamani P, Kinlay S (2010) Long-term risk of clinical events from stenting side-branches of coronary bifurcation lesions with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: an observational meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 77:202–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Louvard Y, Lefèvre T, Cherukupalli R et al (2003) Favorable effect of the “jailed wire” technique when stenting bifurcation lesions. Am J Cardiol 6 (Abstr. Supp)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Brunel P, Lefevre T, Darremont O et al (2006) Provisional T-stenting and kissing balloon in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: results of the French multicenter “TULIPE” study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 68(1):67–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Burzotta F, de Vita M, Sgueglia G et al (2010) How to solve difficult SB access? EuroIntervention Suppl 6(suppl J):J72–J80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lefevre T, Darremont O, Albiero R (2010) Provisional side branch stenting for the treatment of bifurcation lesions. EuroIntervention Suppl 6(suppl J):J65–J71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Burzotta F, Trani C, Sianos G (2010) Jailed balloon protection: a new technique to avoid acute side-branch occlusion during provisional stenting of bifurcated lesions. Bench test report and first clinical experience. EuroIntervention 5(7):809–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Furuichi S, Airoldi F, Colombo A (2007) Rescue inverse crush: a way of get out of trouble. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 70(5):708–712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Koo BK, Kang HJ, Youn TJ et al (2005) Physiologic assessment of jailed side branch lesions using fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol 46(4):633–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Adriaenssens T, Byrne RA, Dibra A et al (2008) Culotte stenting technique in coronary bifurcation disease: angiographic follow-up using dedicated quantitative coronary angiographic analysis and 12-month clinical outcomes. Eur Heart J 29(23):2868–2876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Colombo A, Stankovic G, Orlic D et al (2003) Modified T-stenting technique with crushing for bifurcation lesions: immediate results and 30-day outcome. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 60(2):145–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Chevalier B, Glatt B, Royer T et al (1998) Placement of coronary stents in bifurcation lesions by the “culotte” technique. Am J Cardiol 82:943–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sharma SK, Choudhury A, Lee J, Kim MC, Fisher E, Steinheimer AM, Kini AS (2004) Simultaneous kissing stents (SKS) technique for treating bifurcation lesions in medium-to-large arteries. Am J Cardiol 94(7):913–917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sharma SK (2005) Simultaneous kissing drug-eluting stent technique for percutaneous treatment of bifurcation lesions in large-size vessels. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 65(1):10–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ge L, Airoldi F, Iakovou I et al (2005) Clinical and angiographic outcome after implantation of drug-eluting stents in bifurcation lesions with the crush stent technique: importance of final kissing balloon post-dilation. J Am Coll Cardiol 46:613–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kim YH, Park SW, Hong MK et al (2006) Comparison of simple and complex stenting techniques in the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation stenosis. Am J Cardiol 97(11):1597–1601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Palmerini T, Marzocchi A, Tamburino C et al (2008) Impact of bifurcation technique on 2-year clinical outcomes in 773 patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 1(3):185–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Toyofuku M, Kimura T, Morimoto T, j-Cypher Registry Investigators et al (2009) Three-year outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: insights from the j-Cypher registry. Circulation 120(19):1866–1874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ikeno F, Kim YH, Luna J et al (2006) Acute and long-term outcomes of the novel side access (SLK-View) stent for bifurcation coronary lesions: a multicenter nonrandomized feasibility study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 67(2):198–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lefèvre T, Ormiston J, Guagliumi G et al (2005) The Frontier stent registry: safety and feasibility of a novel dedicated stent for the treatment of bifurcation coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 46(4):592–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Garcia del Blanco G, Bellera Gotarda N, Marti G et al (2011) Clinical and procedural evaluation of the Nile Croco dedicated stent fopr bifurcation. Results of one center initial experience with the first 151 consecutive non-selected patients. EuroIntervention (in press)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ormiston JA, Lefèvre T, Grube E et al (2010) First human use of the TAXUS Petal paclitaxel-eluting bifurcation stent. EuroIntervention 6(1):46–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Sorop O, Hatten TR, van Beusekorn H et al (2010) Dedicated Everolimus-eluting side branch access system: XIENCE SBA. EuroIntervention Suppl 6(suppl J):J155–J160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Cervinka P, Bystron M, Spacek R et al (2008) Treatment of bifurcation lesions using dedicated bifurcation stents versus classic bare-metal stents. Randomized, controlled trial with 12-month angiographic follow up. J Invasive Cardiol 20(10):516–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Verheye S, Grube E, Ramcharitar S et al (2009) First-in-man (FIM) study of the Stentys bifurcation stent–30 days results. EuroIntervention 4(5):566–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Verheye S, Agostoni P, Dubois CL et al (2009) 9-month clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound results of a prospective evaluation of the Axxess self-expanding biolimus A9-eluting stent in coronary bifurcation lesions: the DIVERGE (Drug-Eluting Stent Intervention for Treating Side Branches Effectively) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 53(12):1031–1039PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Onuma Y, Müller R, Ramcharitar S et al (2008) Tryton I, First-In-Man (FIM) study: six month clinical and angiographic outcome, analysis with new quantitative coronary angiography dedicated for bifurcation lesions. EuroIntervention 3(5):546–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud, Hopital Privé Jacques CartierMassyFrance

Personalised recommendations