Compared with non-bifurcation lesions, even if the new generation of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) technology is used to treat coronary bifurcation lesions, the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events is still higher. The evaluation of related clinical data and computer virtual modeling before surgery can guide the implementation of bifurcation PCI in a more precise manner. The new understanding of bifurcation PCI may further improve the clinical prognosis and outcome of patients with bifurcation disease. This review aims to summarize the assessment methods of PCI for coronary heart disease non-left main bifurcation disease and the treatment plan supported by clinical evidence. The treatment plan depends on three parameters: the diameter of the three parts of the bifurcation lesion; the length of the lesion and plaque distribution; and the angle of the bifurcation. To this day, the best technique for PCI for bifurcation lesions is still controversial, and a personalized approach using temporary collateral stent implantation schemes seems to be suitable for 75% to 95% of patients. For more complex bifurcation lesions, it may be necessary to use two stents at the same time. More and more evidence supports the practicability of the DK-crush technique.

Zhang Yirong, Deng Yonglan, Yang Lin. Research Progress of Percutaneous Interventional Therapy For Bifurcation Lesions of Coronary Heart Disease. Frontiers in Medical Science Research (2022) Vol. 4, Issue 2: 39-49. https://doi.org/10.25236/FMSR.2022.040208.

[1] Grundeken MJ, Wykrzykowska JJ, Ishibashi Y, et al. First generation versus second generation drug-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcations: 5-year follow-up of the LEADERS all-comers randomized trial. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015; 87: E248-E260.

[2] Gao X-F, Zhang Y-J, Tian N-L, et al. Stenting strategy for coronary artery bifurcation with drug- eluting stents: a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials and systematic review. EuroIntervention. 2014; 10:561-569.

[3] Milasinovic D, Wijns W, Ntsekhe M, et al. Step-by-step manual for planning and performing bifurcation PCI: a resource-tailored approach. EuroIntervention. 2018; 13: e1804-e1811.

[4] Escaned J, Collet C, Ryan N, et al. Clinical outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with de novo three vessel disease: 1-year results of the SYNTAX II study. Eur. Heart J. 2017; 38: 3124-3134.

[5] Modolo R, Collet C, Chichareon P, et. al. Clinical outcomes with the state-of- the-art approach for treating bifurcation lesions in the SYNTAX II trial. EuroPCR. Paris; 2018.

[6] Flensted Lassen J, Burzotta F, Banning AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for the left main stem and other bifurcation lesions: 12th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2018; 13: 1540-1553.

[7] Sawaya FJ, Lefèvre T, Chevalier B, et al. Contemporary Approach to Coronary Bifurcation Lesion Treatment. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016; 9: 1861-1878.

[8]Collet C, Onuma Y, Cavalcante R, et al. Quantitative angiography methods for bifurcation lesions:  a consensus statement update from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2017; 13: 115-123.

[9] Ormiston JA, Kassab GS, Finet G, et al. Bench testing and coronary artery bifurcations: a consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2018;13:e1794- e1803.De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012; 367: 991-1001.

[10] Girasis C, Onuma Y, Schuurbiers JCH, et al. Validity and variability in visual assessment of stenosis severity in phantom bifurcation lesions: A survey in experts during the fifth meeting of the european bifurcation club. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2012; 79: 361-368.

[11] Sarno G, Garg S, Onuma Y, et al. Bifurcation lesions: Functional assessment by fractional flow reserve vs. anatomical assessment using conventional and dedicated bifurcation quantitative coronary angiogram. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2010; 76: 817-823.

[12] Vassilev D, Dosev L, Collet C, et al. Intracoronary electrocardiogram to guide percutaneous interventions in coronary bifurcations - a proof of concept: the FIESTA (Ffr vs. IcEcgSTA) study. EuroIntervention. 2018; 14: e530-e537.

[13] Tu S, Jing J, Holm NR, et al. In vivo assessment of bifurcation optimal viewing angles and bifurcation angles by three-dimensional (3D) quantitative coronary angiography. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2012; 28: 1617-1625.

[14] De La Torre Hernandez JM, Hernández Hernandez F, Alfonso F, et al. Prospective Application of Pre-Defined Intravascular Ultrasound Criteria for Assessment of Intermediate Left Main Coronary Artery Lesions: Results From the Multicenter LITRO Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2011; 58: 351-358.

[15] Sakamoto N, Hoshino Y, Mizukami H, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors of acute side branch occlusion in coronary artery bifurcation lesions just after single stent crossover. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015; 87: 243-250.

[16] Barbato E, Carrié D, Dardas P, et al. European expert consensus on rotational atherectomy. EuroIntervention. 2015; 11: 30-36.

[17] Nørgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve Derived From Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography in Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The NXT Trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014; 63: 1145-1155.

[18] Park JJ, Chun EJ, Cho Y-S, et al. Potential Predictors of Side-Branch Occlusion in Bifurcation  Lesions after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Coronary CT Angiography Study. Radiology. 2014; 271: 711-720.

[19] Chen S-L, Sheiban I, Xu B, et al. Impact of the Complexity of Bifurcation Lesions Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents: The DEFINITION Study (Definitions and impact of complEx biFurcation lesIons on clinical outcomes after percutaNeous coronary IntervenTIOn using drug-eluting steNts). JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014; 7: 1266-1276.

[20] Zhang J-J, Gao X-F, Han Y-L, et al. Treatment effects of systematic two-stent and provisional stenting techniques in patients with complex coronary bifurcation lesions: rationale and design of  a prospective, randomised and multicentre DEFINITION II trial. BMJ Open. 2018; 8: e020019.

[21] Steigen TK, Maeng M, Wiseth R, et al. Randomized Study on Simple Versus Complex Stenting of Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions: The Nordic Bifurcation Study. Circulation. 2006; 114: 1955- 1961.

[22] Colombo A, Bramucci E, Saccà S, et al. 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. 2009; 119: 71-78.

[23] Hildick-Smith D, de Belder AJ, Cooter N, et al. Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug- eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies. Circulation. 2010; 121: 1235-1243.

[24] Pan M, de Lezo JS, Medina A, et al. Rapamycin-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcated coronary lesions: A randomized comparison of a simple versus complex strategy. Am. Heart J. 2004; 148: 857-864.

[25] Ferenc M, Gick M, Kienzle R-P, et al. Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. Eur. Heart J. 2008; 29: 2859-2867.

[26] Behan MW, Holm NR, Curzen NP, et al. 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. 2011; 4: 57-64.

[27] Maeng M, Holm NR, Erglis A, et al. Long-Term Results After Simple Versus Complex Stenting of Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions: Nordic Bifurcation Study 5-Year Follow-Up Results. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013; 62: 30-34.

[28] Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2011; 58: e44-e122.

[29] D’Ascenzo F, Iannaccone M, Giordana F, et al. Provisional vs. two-stent technique for unprotected left main coronary artery disease after ten years follow up: A propensity matched analysis. Int. J. Cardiol. 2016; 211: 37-42.

[30] Généreux P, Kumsars I, Lesiak M, et al. A Randomized Trial of a Dedicated Bifurcation Stent Versus Provisional Stenting in the Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015; 65: 533-543.

[31] Grundeken MJ, Généreux P, Wykrzykowska JJ, et al. The Tryton Side Branch Stent. EuroIntervention. 2015; 11: V145-V146.

[32] Foin N, Sen S, Allegria E, et al. Maximal expansion capacity with current DES platforms: a critical factor for stent selection in the treatment of left main bifurcations? EuroIntervention. 2013; 8: 1315-1325.

[33] Cho S, Kang TS, Kim J-S, et al. Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Optimal Stent Strategy in Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Stenting. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018; 11: 1247-1258.

[34] Piroth Z, Toth GG, Tonino PAL, et al. Prognostic Value of Fractional Flow Reserve Measured Immediately After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017; 10: 1-9.

[35] Li S-J, Ge Z, Kan J, et al. Cutoff Value and Long-Term Prediction of Clinical Events by FFR Measured Immediately After Implantation of a Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: 1- to 3-Year Results From the DKCRUSH VII Registry Study. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017; 10: 986-995.

[36] Chen S-L, Ye F, Zhang J-J, et al. Randomized Comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided Provisional Stenting of True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI). JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015; 8: 536-546.

[37] Buccheri S, Franchina G, Romano S, et al. Clinical Outcomes Following Intravascular Imaging- Guided Versus Coronary Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stent Implantation: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 31 Studies and 17,882 Patients. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017; 10: 2488-2498.

[38] D’Ascenzo F, Chieffo A, Cerrato E, et al. Incidence and Management of Restenosis After Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Disease With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents (from Failure in Left Main Study With 2nd Generation Stents-Cardiogroup III Study). Am. J. Cardiol. 2017; 119: 978-982.

[39] Park S-J, Kim Y-H, Park D-W, et al. Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on Long-Term Mortality in Stenting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2009; 2: 167-177.

[40] members AF, Windecker S, Kolh P, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularizationThe Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of . Eur. Heart J. 2014; 35: 2541-2619.

[41] Kang SJ, Ahn JM, Song H, et al. Comprehensive intravascular ultrasound assessment of stent area and its impact on restenosis and adverse cardiac events in 403 patients with unprotected left  main disease. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2011; 4: 562-569.

[42] Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur. J. Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2018; 53: 34-78.

[43] Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, et al. 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2016; 152: 1243-1275.

[44] Foin N, Secco GG, Ghilencea L, et al. Final proximal post-dilatation is necessary after kissing balloon in bifurcation stenting. EuroIntervention. 2011; 7: 597-604.

[45] Finet G, Derimay F, Motreff P, et al. Comparative Analysis of Sequential Proximal Optimizing Technique Versus Kissing Balloon Inflation Technique in Provisional Bifurcation Stenting: Fractal Coronary Bifurcation Bench Test. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015; 8: 1308-1317.

[46] Antoniadis AP, Mortier P, Kassab G, et al. Biomechanical Modeling to Improve Coronary Artery Bifurcation Stenting: Expert Review Document on Techniques and Clinical Implementation.  JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015; 8: 1281-1296.

[47] Chiastra C, Grundeken MJ, Collet C, et al. Biomechanical Impact of Wrong Positioning of a Dedicated Stent for Coronary Bifurcations: A Virtual Bench Testing Study. Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol. 2018; 9: 415-426.

[48] Hariki H, Shinke T, Otake H, et al. Potential Benefit of Final Kissing Balloon Inflation After Single Stenting for the Treatment of Bifurcation Lesions. Circ. J. 2013; 77: 1193-1201.

[49] Grundeken MJ, Chiastra C, Wu W, et al. Differences in rotational positioning and subsequent distal main branch rewiring of the Tryton stent: An optical coherence tomography and computational study. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018; 0: 1-10.

[50] Foin N, Gutiérrez-Chico JL, Nakatani S, et al. Incomplete stent apposition causes high shear flow disturbances and delay in neointimal coverage as a function of strut to wall detachment distance implications for the management of incomplete stent apposition. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014; 7: 180-189.

[51] Chatzizisis YS. FLOW ISR Study: Patient-specific bifurcation stenting simulations. Eur. Bifurc. Club. Porto; 2017.

[52] Chen S-L, Zhang J-J, Han Y, et al. Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting for Left Main Distal Bifurcation Lesions: DKCRUSH-V Randomized Trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017; 70: 2605-2617.

[53] Chen S-L, Santoso T, Zhang J-J, et al. Clinical Outcome of Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting of Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions: The 5-Year Follow-Up Results From a Randomized and Multicenter DKCRUSH-II Study (Randomized Study on Double Kissing Crush Technique Versus Provisi. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017; 10: e004497-e004497.

[54] Chen S-L, Xu B, Han Y-L, et al. Comparison of Double Kissing Crush Versus Culotte Stenting for Unprotected Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: Results From a Multicenter, Randomized, Prospective DKCRUSH-III Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013; 61: 1482-1488.