| Popis: |
There have been mixed results regarding the efficacy and safety of various percutaneous coronary intervention bifurcation techniques. An electronic search of Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed for randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of any bifurcation techniques. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis comparing the 1-stent versus 2-stent bifurcation approach, and a network meta-analysis comparing the different bifurcation techniques. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The analysis included 22 randomized trials with 6,359 patients. At a weighted follow-up of 25.9 months, there was no difference in MACE between 1-stent versus 2-stent approaches (risk ratio [RR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 1.56). Exploratory analysis suggested a higher risk of MACE with a 1-stent approach in studies using second-generation drug-eluting stents, if side branch lesion length ≥10 mm, and when final kissing balloon was used. There was no difference between 1-stent versus 2-stent approaches in all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.30), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.68), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.65), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.56) or stent thrombosis (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.78). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that double kissing crush technique was associated with lower MACE, MI, TVR, and target lesion revascularization, whereas culotte technique was associated with higher rates of stent thrombosis. In this meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found no difference between 1-stent versus 2-stent bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention approaches in the risk of MACE during long-term follow-up. Among the various bifurcation techniques, double kissing crush technique was associated with lower rates of MACE, target lesion revascularization, TVR, and MI. |
Full Text from ScienceDirect