Side Branch Additional Treatment for Coronary Bifurcation Lesion Revascularization: Insights From the KISS Randomized Trial
Authors' conclusion
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.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with non-left main coronary bifurcation lesions
- Participants
- 616 patients
- Comparison
- No systematic side branch intervention vs systematic side branch intervention after main branch stenting
- Primary endpoint
- Periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) or myocardial injury (Academic Research Consortium 2 definition)
Methodological detailsmulticentre, international, non-inferiority
- Multicentre
- International
- Non-inferiority
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
no-SBI vs SB intervention (SBI): P < 0.001 for noninferiority · no-SBI vs SBI: P = 0.38 for superiority
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Values | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel MI, target lesion revascularization) · 1 yearno-SBI vs SBI · no difference | no-SBI 4.9% · SBI 6.4% | P = 0.442 |
| SB intervention required in no-SBI | no-SBI 2.0% |
Primary endpoint by age, sex, Medina classification, side branch (SB) residual stenosis (subgroups)
- No significant interaction
Procedure time, radiation dose, contrast use
- Significantly lower in no-SBI
Safety
SB dissection · procedural complications rare
P = 0.004
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →