CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Frequency of nonsystem delays in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and implications for door-to-balloon time reporting (from the American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline program) Red Cell Distribution Width in Patients with Diabetes and Myocardial Infarction: an analysis from the EXAMINE trial Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients How Low to Go With Glucose, Cholesterol, and Blood Pressure in Primary Prevention of CVD 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes: The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Association of Acute Procedural Results with Long-term Outcomes After CTO-PCI The Future of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Advanced Analytics and Clinical Insights Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Interventions Across the Entire Spectrum of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

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.