Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of True and Non-True Bifurcation Lesions According to Medina Classification　– Results From the COBIS (COronary BIfurcation Stent) II Registry

Background:Little is known about the clinical outcomes of patients with different types of coronary bifurcation lesions. We sought to compare long-term clinical outcomes of patients with true or non-true bifurcation lesions who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods and Results:We compared major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], or target lesion revascularization) between 1,502 patients with true bifurcation lesions (51.8%) and 1,395 with non-true bifurcation lesions (48.2%). True bifurcation lesions were defined as Medina classification (1.1.1), (1.0.1), or (0.1.1) lesions. During a median follow-up of 36 months, MACE occurred in 296 (10.2%) patients. Patients with true bifurcation lesions had a significantly higher risk of MACE than those with non-true bifurcation lesions (HR 1.39; 95% CI 1.08–1.80; P=0.01). Among true bifurcation lesions, Medina (1.1.1) and (0.1.1) were associated with a higher risk of cardiac death or MI than Medina (1.0.1) (HR 4.15; 95% CI 1.01–17.1; P=0.05). During the procedure, side branch occlusion occurred more frequently in Medina (1.1.1) and (1.0.1) than Medina (0.1.1) lesions (11.5% vs. 7.4%, P=0.03).Conclusions:Patients with true bifurcation lesions had worse clinical outcomes than those with non-true bifurcation lesions. Procedural and long-term clinical outcomes differed according to the type of bifurcation lesion. These findings should be considered in future bifurcation studies. (Circ J 2015; 79: 1954–1962)