JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2026
Side Branch Additional Treatment for Coronary Bifurcation Lesion Revascularization: Insights From the KISS Randomized Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chevalier Bernard, Cornillet Luc, Bouisset Frederic, Delorme Laurent, Champagne Stephane, Brunel Philippe, Blanchart Katrien, Ferrante Giuseppe, Pan Manuel, Goncalves Pedro, Neylon Antoinette, Lattuca Benoit, KISS Trial Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although provisional stenting is the recommended strategy for most coronary bifurcation lesions, the clinical benefit of additional side branch (SB) intervention remains debated.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a conservative strategy without systematic SB intervention (SBI) is noninferior to systematic SB intervention regarding periprocedural events.
METHODS: The multicenter, international KISS (Keep Bifurcation Single Stenting Simple) trial randomized patients with non-left main bifurcation lesions to 2 groups: no SBI or SBI following main branch stenting with the Resolute Onyx drug-eluting stent and a proximal optimization technique without impairment of SB flow. The primary endpoint was periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) or myocardial injury, according to the Academic Research Consortium 2 definition. Secondary endpoints included procedural complications and 12-month clinical outcomes, including target lesion failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel MI, and target lesion revascularization.
RESULTS: Among the 616 included patients, 81% were treated for chronic coronary disease, and the bifurcation mainly involved was between the left anterior descending coronary artery and the diagonal. In the no-SBI group, an intervention on the SB was required in 2.0% of patients (n = 6). Periprocedural MI or myocardial injury occurred in 4.1% (n = 11) in the no-SBI group vs 5.7% (n = 16) in the SBI group (P < 0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.38 for superiority). There was no significant interaction with age, sex, Medina classification, or SB residual stenosis. Procedure time, radiation dose, and contrast use were significantly lower in the no-SBI group. Procedural complications were rare, but SB dissection was more frequently observed in the SBI group (2.9% vs 0.0%; P = 0.004). There was no difference in target lesion failure at 1 year (4.9% [n = 15] vs 6.4% [n = 20] in the no-SBI and SBI groups respectively; P = 0.442).
CONCLUSIONS: The KISS trial demonstrates that a conservative strategy without systematic SB intervention is associated with very rare procedural complications and is noninferior to a systematic SB intervention regarding periprocedural MI and myocardial injury.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a conservative strategy without systematic SB intervention (SBI) is noninferior to systematic SB intervention regarding periprocedural events.
METHODS: The multicenter, international KISS (Keep Bifurcation Single Stenting Simple) trial randomized patients with non-left main bifurcation lesions to 2 groups: no SBI or SBI following main branch stenting with the Resolute Onyx drug-eluting stent and a proximal optimization technique without impairment of SB flow. The primary endpoint was periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) or myocardial injury, according to the Academic Research Consortium 2 definition. Secondary endpoints included procedural complications and 12-month clinical outcomes, including target lesion failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel MI, and target lesion revascularization.
RESULTS: Among the 616 included patients, 81% were treated for chronic coronary disease, and the bifurcation mainly involved was between the left anterior descending coronary artery and the diagonal. In the no-SBI group, an intervention on the SB was required in 2.0% of patients (n = 6). Periprocedural MI or myocardial injury occurred in 4.1% (n = 11) in the no-SBI group vs 5.7% (n = 16) in the SBI group (P < 0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.38 for superiority). There was no significant interaction with age, sex, Medina classification, or SB residual stenosis. Procedure time, radiation dose, and contrast use were significantly lower in the no-SBI group. Procedural complications were rare, but SB dissection was more frequently observed in the SBI group (2.9% vs 0.0%; P = 0.004). There was no difference in target lesion failure at 1 year (4.9% [n = 15] vs 6.4% [n = 20] in the no-SBI and SBI groups respectively; P = 0.442).
CONCLUSIONS: The KISS trial demonstrates that a conservative strategy without systematic SB intervention is associated with very rare procedural complications and is noninferior to a systematic SB intervention regarding periprocedural MI and myocardial injury.