The European bifurcation club Left Main Coronary Stent study: a randomized comparison of stepwise provisional vs. systematic dual stenting strategies (EBC MAIN)
Primary resultResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 0.8 95% CI 0.5–1.3Authors' conclusion
Among patients with true bifurcation left main stem stenosis requiring intervention, fewer major adverse cardiac events occurred with a stepwise layered provisional approach than with planned dual stenting, although the difference was not statistically significant.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with true left main stem bifurcation lesions requiring intervention (age 71 ± 10 years; 77% male)
- Participants
- 467 patients
- Comparison
- Stepwise layered provisional stenting vs systematic dual stenting
- Stepwise provisionaln = 230
- Systematic dual stentn = 237reference
- Primary endpoint
- Composite of:
- Death
- MI
- Target lesion revascularization
- Follow-up
- 12 months
Methodological details11 European countries
- 11 European countries
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
0.8
95% CI 0.5–1.3
P = 0.34
By group
Stepwise provisional vs Systematic dual stent
HR 0.8 (95% CI 0.5–1.3); P = 0.34
Secondary outcomes
Death
P = 0.48
MI
P = 0.91
Target lesion revascularization
P = 0.16
Procedure time, X-ray dose, consumables
- Favoured the stepwise provisional approach
Symptomatic improvement
- Excellent and equal in each group
Safety
Stent thrombosis
P = 0.90
Original publication
The European bifurcation club Left Main Coronary Stent study: a randomized comparison of stepwise provisional vs. systematic dual stenting strategies (EBC MAIN). Eur Heart J. Published 18 May 2021. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it