Definition and Criteria of a Significant Side Branch

Dr. Çağatay Tunca

Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Cardiology, Ankara, Türkiye

ABSTRACT

Coronary bifurcation lesions are defined as coronary artery stenoses that involve or are adjacent to the origin of a significant side branch (SB). Determining whether the SB is clinically significant directly influences the treatment strategy. Previous studies have focused on the optimal application of provisional or dual stenting techniques. While guidelines recommend the MEDINA classification for bifurcation assessment, they also ad- vocate the use of advanced imaging modalities such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) when invasive angiography proves insufficient. The prognostic importance of the side branch is closely linked to the myocardial territory it supplies. An ischemic burden involving at least 10% of the myocardium is considered a critical threshold for revascularization. Coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography and hybrid imaging techniques provide a more accurate risk assessment by evaluating the myo- cardial area supplied by the side branch. Even in symptomatic but prognostically insignificant side branches, intervention may be necessary if symptoms persist. Accurately determining the significance of side branches, particularly in non-left main bifurcation lesions, can improve both procedural success and long-term clinical outcomes. This section explores the clinical and prognostic significance of side branches, offering insights into current approaches and criteria in the management of bifurcation lesions.

Keywords: Coronary artery disease; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Stents; Side branch

Referanslar

  1. Lassen JF, Burzotta F, Banning AP, et al. Percutaneous coro- nary intervention for the left main stem and other bifurcation lesions: 12th consensus document from the European Bi- furcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2018;13(13):1540-1553. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  2. Medina A, Suárez de Lezo J, Pan M. A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesions. Article in Spanish. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2006;59(2):183. [Crossref]
  3. Perl L, Witberg G, Greenberg G, Vaknin-Assa H, Kornowski R, Assali A. Prognostic significance of the Medina classifica- tion in bifurcation lesion percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stents. Heart Vessels. 2020;35(3): 331-339. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  4. Legrand V, Thomas M, Zelisko M, et al. Percutaneous coro- nary intervention of bifurcation lesions: state-of-the-art. In- sights from the second meeting of the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2007;3(1):44-49. [PubMed]
  5. Oviedo C, Maehara A, Mintz GS, et al. Intravascular ultra- sound classification of plaque distribution in left main cor- onary artery bifurcations: where is the plaque really locat- ed? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(2):105-112. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  6. Louvard Y, Medina A. Definitions and classifications of bifur- cation lesions and treatment. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(sup- pl V):V23-V26. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  7. Kubo T, Akasaka T, Shite J, et al. OCT compared with IVUS in a coronary lesion assessment: the OPUS-CLASS study. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2013;6(10):1095-1104. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  8. Okamura T, Onuma Y, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. First-in-man evaluation of intravascular optical frequency domain im- aging (OFDI) of Terumo: a comparison with intravascular ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography. EuroIn- tervention. 2011;6(9):1037-1045. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  9. Grundeken MJ, Collet C, Ishibashi Y, et al. Visual estimation versus different quantitative coronary angiography meth- ods to assess lesion severity in bifurcation lesions. Cathe- ter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91(7):1263-1270. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  10. Wang Y, Zeng XL, Gao RR, Wang XM, Wang XT, Zheng GQ. Neurogenic hypo thesis of cardiac ischemic pain. Med Hypotheses. 2009;72(4):402-404. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  11. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in pa- tients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed to- mography. Circulation. 2003; 107(23):2900-2907. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  12. Kassab GS, Bhatt DL, Lefèvre T, Louvard Y. Relation of angiographic side branch calibre to myocardial mass: a proof of concept myocardial infarct index. EuroIntervention. 2013;8(12):1461-1463. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  13. Colombo A, Bramucci E, Saccà S, et al. Randomized study of the crush technique versus provisional side-branch stent- ing in true coronary bifurcations: the CACTUS (Coronary Bifurcations: Application of the Crushing Technique Using Sirolimus Eluting Stents) study. Circulation. 2009;119(1):71-78. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  14. Behan MW, Holm NR, de Belder AJ, et al. Coronary bi- furcation lesions treated with simple or complex stenting: 5-year survival from patient-level pooled analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coro- nary Study. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(24):1923-1928. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  15. Ferenc M, Gick M, Kienzle RP, et al. Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(23):2859- 2867. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  16. Papamanolis L, Kim HJ, Jaquet C, et al. Myocardial perfusion simulation for coronary artery disease: a coupled patient-spe- cific multiscale model. Ann Biomed Eng. 2021;49(5):1432- 1447. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  17. Kurata A, Kono A, Sakamoto T, et al. Quantification of the myocardial area at risk using coronary CT angiography and Voronoi algorithm-based myocardial segmentation. Eur Ra- diol. 2015;25(1):49-57. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  18. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in pa- tients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed to- mography. Circulation. 2003; 107(23):2900-2907. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  19. Lunardi M, Louvard Y, Lefèvre T, et al. Definitions and Stan- dardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations. EuroIntervention. 2023;19(10):e807-e831. Published 2023 Dec 4. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  20. Kim HY, Doh JH, Lim HS, et al. Identification of coro- nary artery side branch supplying myocardial mass that may benefit from revascularization. J Am Coll Cardi- ol Intv. 2017;10(6):571-581. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  21. Sumitsuji S, Ide S, Siegrist PT, et al. Reproducibility and clinical potential of myocardial mass at risk calculated by a novel software utilizing cardiac computed tomography infor- mation. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2016;31(3):218-225. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  22. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/ EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87-165. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  23. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Picard MH, et al. Comparative defi- nitions for moderate severe ischemia in stress nuclear, echo- cardiography, and magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2014;7(6):593-604. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  24. Flotats A, Knuuti J, Gutberlet M, et al. Hybrid cardiac im- aging: SPECT/CT and PET/CT. A joint position statement by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), the European Society of Cardiac Radiology (ESCR) and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011; 38(1):201-212. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  25. Gonzalo N, Serruys PW, García-García HM, et al. Quanti- tative ex vivo and in vivo comparison of lumen dimensions measured by optical coherence tomography and intravas- cular ultrasound in human coronary arteries. Rev Esp Car- diol. 2009; 62(6):615-624. [Crossref]