Cargando…
Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
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 searc...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9238651/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35723005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.025394 |
_version_ | 1784737107959349248 |
---|---|
author | Park, Dae Yong An, Seokyung Jolly, Neeraj Attanasio, Steve Yadav, Neha Rao, Sunil Vij, Aviral |
author_facet | Park, Dae Yong An, Seokyung Jolly, Neeraj Attanasio, Steve Yadav, Neha Rao, Sunil Vij, Aviral |
author_sort | Park, Dae Yong |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9238651 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92386512022-06-30 Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Park, Dae Yong An, Seokyung Jolly, Neeraj Attanasio, Steve Yadav, Neha Rao, Sunil Vij, Aviral J Am Heart Assoc Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9238651/ /pubmed/35723005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.025394 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis Park, Dae Yong An, Seokyung Jolly, Neeraj Attanasio, Steve Yadav, Neha Rao, Sunil Vij, Aviral Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
title | Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
title_full | Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
title_fullStr | Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
title_short | Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
title_sort | systematic review and network meta‐analysis comparing bifurcation techniques for percutaneous coronary intervention |
topic | Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9238651/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35723005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.025394 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT parkdaeyong systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysiscomparingbifurcationtechniquesforpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT anseokyung systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysiscomparingbifurcationtechniquesforpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT jollyneeraj systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysiscomparingbifurcationtechniquesforpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT attanasiosteve systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysiscomparingbifurcationtechniquesforpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT yadavneha systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysiscomparingbifurcationtechniquesforpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT raosunil systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysiscomparingbifurcationtechniquesforpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT vijaviral systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysiscomparingbifurcationtechniquesforpercutaneouscoronaryintervention |