Cargando…

Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for coronary left main (LM) bifurcation lesions remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared the medium and long-term follow-up clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies of LM bifurcation lesi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meng, Shuai, Kong, Xiangyun, Nan, Jing, Yang, Xingsheng, Li, Jianan, Yang, Shenghua, Zhao, Lihan, Jin, Zening
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10405628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37554363
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1145412
_version_ 1785085573705236480
author Meng, Shuai
Kong, Xiangyun
Nan, Jing
Yang, Xingsheng
Li, Jianan
Yang, Shenghua
Zhao, Lihan
Jin, Zening
author_facet Meng, Shuai
Kong, Xiangyun
Nan, Jing
Yang, Xingsheng
Li, Jianan
Yang, Shenghua
Zhao, Lihan
Jin, Zening
author_sort Meng, Shuai
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for coronary left main (LM) bifurcation lesions remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared the medium and long-term follow-up clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies of LM bifurcation lesions. METHODS: We systematically identified studies published within 5 years comparing single vs. systematic double stenting strategies for LM bifurcation lesions. The primary endpoint was medium-term (1 year) and long-term (at least 3 years) all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), target lesion revascularization (TLR), overall occurrence of stent thrombosis (ST), cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies with 7,318 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of the medium-term follow-up clinical outcomes, our pooled analysis showed that use of the systematic dual stenting strategy was associated with a lower ST risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20–0.89, P = 0.02) and cardiac death risk (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21–0.89, P = 0.02) compared to the single stenting strategy; there was no significant difference between the two strategies regarding rates of all-cause death, MACE, TLR, and MI. Patients with long-term follow-up showed comparable observed clinical outcomes between the two strategies. Most importantly, for patients with true LM bifurcation, the risk of all-cause death, ST, and CV mortality following the systematic dual stenting strategy was significantly lower than the single stenting strategy. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LM bifurcation lesions, both the systematic dual stenting strategy and single stenting strategy demonstrated comparable results in terms of all-cause mortality during medium-term and long-term follow-up. However, the systematic dual stenting strategy showed a tendency towards lower incidence of ST and CV mortality compared to the single stenting strategy during medium-term follow-up. Consequently, the systematic dual stenting strategy yielded superior clinical outcomes for patients with LM bifurcation lesions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10405628
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104056282023-08-08 Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis Meng, Shuai Kong, Xiangyun Nan, Jing Yang, Xingsheng Li, Jianan Yang, Shenghua Zhao, Lihan Jin, Zening Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine INTRODUCTION: The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for coronary left main (LM) bifurcation lesions remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared the medium and long-term follow-up clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies of LM bifurcation lesions. METHODS: We systematically identified studies published within 5 years comparing single vs. systematic double stenting strategies for LM bifurcation lesions. The primary endpoint was medium-term (1 year) and long-term (at least 3 years) all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), target lesion revascularization (TLR), overall occurrence of stent thrombosis (ST), cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies with 7,318 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of the medium-term follow-up clinical outcomes, our pooled analysis showed that use of the systematic dual stenting strategy was associated with a lower ST risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20–0.89, P = 0.02) and cardiac death risk (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21–0.89, P = 0.02) compared to the single stenting strategy; there was no significant difference between the two strategies regarding rates of all-cause death, MACE, TLR, and MI. Patients with long-term follow-up showed comparable observed clinical outcomes between the two strategies. Most importantly, for patients with true LM bifurcation, the risk of all-cause death, ST, and CV mortality following the systematic dual stenting strategy was significantly lower than the single stenting strategy. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LM bifurcation lesions, both the systematic dual stenting strategy and single stenting strategy demonstrated comparable results in terms of all-cause mortality during medium-term and long-term follow-up. However, the systematic dual stenting strategy showed a tendency towards lower incidence of ST and CV mortality compared to the single stenting strategy during medium-term follow-up. Consequently, the systematic dual stenting strategy yielded superior clinical outcomes for patients with LM bifurcation lesions. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10405628/ /pubmed/37554363 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1145412 Text en © 2023 Meng, Kong, Nan, Yang, Li, Yang, Zhao and Jin. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Meng, Shuai
Kong, Xiangyun
Nan, Jing
Yang, Xingsheng
Li, Jianan
Yang, Shenghua
Zhao, Lihan
Jin, Zening
Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10405628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37554363
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1145412
work_keys_str_mv AT mengshuai comparingtheclinicaloutcomesofsinglevssystematicdualstentingstrategiesforunprotectedleftmainbifurcationlesionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kongxiangyun comparingtheclinicaloutcomesofsinglevssystematicdualstentingstrategiesforunprotectedleftmainbifurcationlesionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT nanjing comparingtheclinicaloutcomesofsinglevssystematicdualstentingstrategiesforunprotectedleftmainbifurcationlesionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yangxingsheng comparingtheclinicaloutcomesofsinglevssystematicdualstentingstrategiesforunprotectedleftmainbifurcationlesionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lijianan comparingtheclinicaloutcomesofsinglevssystematicdualstentingstrategiesforunprotectedleftmainbifurcationlesionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yangshenghua comparingtheclinicaloutcomesofsinglevssystematicdualstentingstrategiesforunprotectedleftmainbifurcationlesionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhaolihan comparingtheclinicaloutcomesofsinglevssystematicdualstentingstrategiesforunprotectedleftmainbifurcationlesionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jinzening comparingtheclinicaloutcomesofsinglevssystematicdualstentingstrategiesforunprotectedleftmainbifurcationlesionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis