Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00693251

Optimal Stenting Strategy For True Bifurcation Lesions

It is unclear which stenting strategy will be optimal for true bifurcation coronary lesions.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–75 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Phase 4

Primary location

Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Bucheon-si, South Korea

Loading trial locations.

About this study

The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions with bare-metal stents is hindered by increased rates of procedural complications and long-term major adverse cardiac events compared with non-bifurcated lesions.1 Randomized studies have demonstrated that drug-eluting stents reduce restenosis when used in relatively simple lesions; and recent data have demonstrated efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent for bifurcation lesions compared with historical data of BMS. In one study of bifurcation lesions, the overall restenosis rate was 23%, with the majority of side branch restenoses occurring at the ostium after use of a T-stenting technique. Indeed, side branch restenosis occurred in 16.7% after T-stenting, compared with 7.1% after other stenting techniques.

The "crush" technique of bifurcation stenting with DESs was introduced by Colombo et al. in 2003 as a relatively simple technique that ensures complete coverage of the side branch ostium, thereby facilitating drug delivery at this site. Initial data of 20 patients treated with this technique with SES suggest that it is a safe method, with an acceptable rate of procedural complications and no further adverse events up to 30 days follow-up. Recently, angiographic data have shown the importance of simultaneous kissing balloon post-dilation in reducing restenosis and need for target lesion revascularization. They also reported that compared to T-stenting, crushing with final kissing balloon dilatation was associated with lower rate of restenosis and target lesion revascularization. Consequently, the crushing is currently most promising technique in treating bifurcation lesions using two stents. However, despite the advance of bifurcation stenting technique, the superiority of bifurcation stenting with crushing technique over simple stenting in bifurcation lesion has not been demonstrated.

Therefore, we conducted the prospective randomized study comparing crushing technique with final kissing balloon dilatation and a simple technique (main vessel stenting and provisional T-stenting) for treatment of true bifurcation lesions.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Clinical
  • Patients with angina and documented ischemia or patients with documented silent ischemia
  • Patients who are eligible for intracoronary stenting
  • Age >18 years, <75 ages
  • Angiographic
  • De novo lesion located in a major bifurcation point with the MEDINA classification type 1.1.0, 1.0.0, or 0.1.0
  • Main vessel : >= 2.5 mm in vessel size, >= 50% in diameter stenosis and =< 50 mm in lesion length by visual estimation, in which the lesion seems to be covered with =< 2 stents
  • Side branch : >= 2.0 mm in vessel size, >= 50% in diameter stenosis, and < 20 mm in lesion length by visual estimation, in which the lesion seems to be covered with single stent

Exclusion criteria

  • History of bleeding diathesis or coagulopathy
  • Pregnant
  • Known hypersensitivity or contra-indication to contrast agent, heparin, sirolimus and paclitaxel
  • Limited life-expectancy (less than 1 year) due to combined serious disease
  • ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction < 2 weeks
  • Characteristics of lesion:
  • Left main disease
  • In-stent restenosis
  • Graft vessels
  • Chronic total occlusion
  • TIMI flow =< grade 2 in the side branch
  • Renal dysfunction, creatinine >= 2.0mg/dL
  • Contraindication to aspirin, clopidogrel or cilostazol
  • LV ejection fraction =< 35%

Treatment and study plan

Crush technique

Procedure

Crush technique

Other names: Sirolimus, Paclitaxel, Zotarolimus and Everolimus stents

provisional T stenting

Procedure

Provisional T stenting

Other names: Sirolimus, Paclitaxel, Zotarolimus and Everolimus stents

Primary outcomes

  1. Angiographic binary restenosis rate (diameter stenosis >= 50%) at 8 months in either main or side branch

    Time frame: 8 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Composite of major cardiac adverse events (MACE) including death, MI, stent thrombosis and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization

    Time frame: 2 years

  2. Reocclusion rate at the side branch at 8 month angiographic follow-up

    Time frame: 8 months

  3. Late loss at the main vessel and the side branch

    Time frame: 8 months

  4. Restenosis rate at the main vessel and/or side branch

    Time frame: 8 months

  5. Influence of bifurcation angle

    Time frame: 8 months

  6. Influence of new three segment bifurcation QCA software

    Time frame: 8 months

  7. Fluoroscopic time

    Time frame: baseline

  8. Procedure time

    Time frame: baseline

  9. Amount of contrast agent

    Time frame: baseline

  10. Number of used stents

    Time frame: baseline

  11. FFR assessment in the side branch

    Time frame: baseline and 8 months

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Seung-Jung Park

Other

Collaborators

  • CardioVascular Research Foundation, Korea

Registry information

Official study title

Phase IV Study of Optimal Stenting Strategy For True Bifurcation Lesions

Acronym: PERFECT

Important dates

Study start
2008
Primary completion
2015
Study completion
2015
First posted
Jun 9, 2008
Registry last updated
Nov 17, 2015

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.