CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

A Randomized Study of Distal Filter Protection Versus Conventional Treatment During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Attenuated Plaque Identified by Intravascular Ultrasound Relationship between intravascular ultrasound guidance and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents: the assessment of dual antiplatelet therapy with drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES) study First-in-man evaluation of intravascular optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) of Terumo: a comparison with intravascular ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography Assessment of coronary atherosclerosis by IVUS and IVUS-based imaging modalities: progression and regression studies, tissue composition and beyond Phenomapping for Novel Classification of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Comparison of intravascular ultrasound guided versus angiography guided drug eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis Titration of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Surgery Does Not Improve Survival in Patients With Isolated Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation Derivation, Validation, and Prognostic Utility of a Prediction Rule for Nonresponse to Clopidogrel: The ABCD-GENE Score Temporal Trends in Inpatient Use of Intravascular Imaging Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States

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.