CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Prognostic value of coronary artery calcium screening in subjects with and without diabetes The Use of Sex-Specific Factors in the Assessment of Women’s Cardiovascular Risk Impact of Lesion Preparation Strategies on Outcomes of Left Main PCI: The EXCEL Trial Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Is Associated With Better Outcome in Patients Undergoing Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting Compared With Angiography Guidance Alone Stage-dependent differential effects of interleukin-1 isoforms on experimental atherosclerosis Online Quantitative Aortographic Assessment of Aortic Regurgitation After TAVR: Results of the OVAL Study Impact of final stent dimensions on long-term results following sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: serial intravascular ultrasound analysis from the sirius trial Health Status After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines High-risk plaque detected on coronary CT angiography predicts acute coronary syndromes independent of significant stenosis in acute chest pain: results from the ROMICAT-II trial

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.