CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

分叉支架

科研文章

荐读文献

Randomized study to evaluate sirolimus-eluting stents implanted at coronary bifurcation lesions Impact of bifurcation technique on 2-year clinical outcomes in 773 patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents In vitro flow and optical coherence tomography comparison of two bailout techniques after failed provisional stenting for bifurcation percutaneous coronary interventions The Comparison of Clinical Outcomes After Drug-Eluting Balloon and Drug-Eluting Stent Use for Left Main Bifurcation In-Stent Restenosis A randomized trial of bifurcation stenting technique in chronic total occlusions percutaneous coronary intervention Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Techniques for Bifurcation Disease: Network Meta-analysis Reveals Superiority of Double-Kissing Crush Feasibility and efficacy of the ultrashort side branch dedicated balloon in coronary bifurcation stenting Anatomical Attributes of Clinically Relevant Diagonal Branches in Patients with Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions Three-Year Outcomes of the DKCRUSH-V Trial Comparing DK Crush With Provisional Stenting for Left Main Bifurcation Lesions Tips of the dual-lumen microcatheter-facilitated reverse wire technique in percutaneous coronary interventions for markedly angulated bifurcated lesions

Review ArticleVolume 13, Issue 12, 22 June 2020, Pages 1432-1444

JOURNAL:JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions Article Link

Clinical Outcomes Following Coronary Bifurcation PCI Techniques: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis Comprising 5,711 Patients

GDI Gioia, J Sonck, C Collet et al. Keywords: bifurcation techniques; DK crush vs. provisional stenting; coronary bifurcations; network meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of different bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) techniques.


BACKGROUND - Despite several randomized trials, the optimal PCI technique for bifurcation lesions remains a matter of debate. Provisional stenting has been recommended as the default technique for most bifurcation lesions. Emerging data support double-kissing crush (DK-crush) as a 2-stent technique.


METHODS - PubMed and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing PCI bifurcation techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions. Outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes of interest were cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel or lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using Bayesian network meta-analysis.


RESULTS - Twenty-one randomized controlled trials including 5,711 patients treated using 5 bifurcation PCI techniques were included. Investigated techniques were provisional stenting, T stenting/T and protrusion, crush, culotte, and DK-crush. Median follow-up duration was 12 months (interquartile range: 9 to 36 months). When all techniques were considered, patients treated using the DK-crush technique had less occurrence of MACE (OR: 0.39; 95% credible interval: 0.26 to 0.55) compared with those treated using provisional stenting, driven by a reduction in target lesion revascularization (OR: 0.36; 95% credible interval: 0.22 to 0.57). No differences were found in cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis among analyzed PCI techniques. No differences in MACE were observed among provisional stenting, culotte, T stenting/T and protrusion, and crush. In nonleft main bifurcations, DK-crush reduced MACE (OR: 0.42; 95% credible interval: 0.24 to 0.66).


CONCLUSIONS - In this network meta-analysis, DK-crush was associated with fewer MACE, driven by lower rates of repeat revascularization, whereas no significant differences among techniques were observed for cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. A clinical benefit of 2-stent techniques was observed over provisional stenting in bifurcation with side branch lesion length 10 mm.


Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.