Stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis demonstrates superiority of double-kissing crush in complex lesions.

Objective: This study was aimed to compare different stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation disease (CBD). Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial for CBD; over the years, several stent techniques for bifurcation lesions have been used. Current guidelines recommend a provisional single-stent strategy as the preferred method for coronary artery bifurcation lesions. However, several randomized controlled trials (RCT) indicated that two-stent techniques showed better clinical outcomes. Methods: We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science to include RCTs. The primary endpoint was the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). Secondary outcomes were cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target-lesion or target-vessel revascularization (TLR or TVR), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST). Finally, we used 26 RCTs and a total of 7257 individuals were randomly assigned to one of the 6 stent techniques and included in this network meta-analysis. Results: In our network meta-analysis, double-kissing (DK) crush was significantly more superior to other 5 stent techniques in MACEs: OR vs. provisional 0.40 (95% CI 0.28–0.55); vs. culotte 0.40 (95% CI 0.26–0.60). DK crush ranked the most effective treatment for MACE (100%), MI (75%), ST (83%), and TLR (100%) in the rank probabilities analysis. In patients with complex bifurcation lesion defined by DEFINITION criteria, DK crush was notably more efficacious than provisional, culotte, and T-stenting/T-stenting and protrusion (TAP) in MACEs (OR vs. provisional 0.26, 95% CI 0.13–0.52) and TLR (OR vs. provisional 0.24, 95% CI 0.10–0.58). Conclusion: Compared with other stenting techniques, DK crush had a lower incidence of MACEs in CBD. DK crush was significantly associated with a lower rate of MACEs in patients with complex bifurcation lesions defined by the DEFINITION criterion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Clinical Research in Cardiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)