Stepwise provisional versus systematic culotte for stenting of true coronary bifurcation lesions: five-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised EBC TWO Trial
Primary resultResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 0.75 95% CI 0.41–1.38Authors' conclusion
In large non-left main true bifurcation lesions, the use of a systematic culotte strategy showed no benefit over provisional stenting for the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularisation at 5 years.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing stenting of non-left main true bifurcation lesions (side branch diameter ≥2.5 mm, lesion length >5 mm)197 completed 5-year follow-up
- Participants
- 200 patients
- Comparison
- Stepwise provisional vs systematic culotte stenting
- Primary endpoint
- Composite of:
- All-cause mortality
- MI
- Target vessel revascularisation
- Follow-up
- 5 years
Methodological detailsmulticentre, 5-year follow-up
- Multicentre
- 5-year follow-up
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
0.75
95% CI 0.41–1.38
By group
Provisional vs Systematic culotte
HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.41–1.38)
Further findings
All-cause mortality, MI, TVR (individual components) · 5 years
- No significant differences: all-cause mortality 7.8% vs 7.2%, HR 1.11 (95% CI 0.40-3.05)
- MI 8.7% vs 13.4%, HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.27-1.50)
- TVR 6.8% vs 9.3%, HR 1.12 (95% CI 0.37-3.34)
Primary endpoint by extent of side branch disease
- No significant interaction
- P = 0.34
Safety
Stent thrombosis · 5 years
- Similar rates: 1.9% vs 3.1%, HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.11-3.75)
Original publication
Stepwise provisional versus systematic culotte for stenting of true coronary bifurcation lesions: five-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised EBC TWO Trial. EuroIntervention. Published 16 May 2023. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it