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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Dae Yong, An, Seokyung, Jolly, Neeraj, Attanasio, Steve, Yadav, Neha, Rao, Sunil, Vij, Aviral
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