CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II trial Relationship Between Infarct Size and Outcomes Following Primary PCI: Patient-Level Analysis From 10 Randomized Trials Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary bifurcation lesions: a review Predicting lifetime risk for developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in Chinese population: the China-PAR project Prognostic impact of non-culprit chronic total occlusions in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial Risk of Early Adverse Events After Clopidogrel Discontinuation in Patients Undergoing Short-Term Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: An Individual Participant Data Analysis Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Non-eligibility for reperfusion therapy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Contemporary insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Predicting the 10-Year Risks of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Chinese Population: The China-PAR Project (Prediction for ASCVD Risk in China) Intracoronary Optical Coherence Tomography 2018: Current Status and Future Directions

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.