1. Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
- Author
-
Dae Yong Park, Seokyung An, Neeraj Jolly, Steve Attanasio, Neha Yadav, Sunil Rao, and Aviral Vij
- Subjects
bifurcation technique ,coronary ,DK crush ,percutaneous coronary intervention ,provisional ,stent ,Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system ,RC666-701 - Abstract
Background Bifurcation lesions account for 20% of all percutaneous coronary interventions and represent a complex subset which are associated with lower procedural success and higher rates of restenosis. The ideal bifurcation technique, however, remains elusive. Methods and Results Extensive search of the literature was performed to pull data from randomized clinical trials that met predetermined inclusion criteria. Conventional meta‐analysis produced pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% CI of 2‐stent technique versus provisional stent on prespecified outcomes. Both frequentist and Bayesian network meta‐analyses were performed to compare bifurcation techniques. A total of 8318 patients were included from 29 randomized clinical trials. Conventional meta‐analysis showed no significant differences in all‐cause mortality, cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization between 2‐stent techniques and provisional stenting. Frequentist network meta‐analysis revealed that double kissing crush was associated with lower cardiac death (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38–0.84), major adverse cardiac events (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39–0.64), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39–0.90), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28–0.88), target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization when compared with provisional stenting. Double kissing crush was also superior to other 2‐stent techniques, including T‐stent or T and protrusion, dedicated bifurcation stent, and culotte. Conclusions Double kissing crush was associated with lower risk of cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization compared with provisional stenting and was superior to other 2‐stent techniques. Superiority of 2‐stent strategy over provisional stenting was observed in subgroup meta‐analysis stratified to side branch lesion length ≥10 mm.
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF