Dataset Information

Stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis demonstrates superiority of double-kissing crush in complex lesions.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study was aimed to compare different stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation disease (CBD).

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial for CBD; over the years, several stent techniques for bifurcation lesions have been used. Current guidelines recommend a provisional single-stent strategy as the preferred method for coronary artery bifurcation lesions. However, several randomized controlled trials (RCT) indicated that two-stent techniques showed better clinical outcomes.

Methods

We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science to include RCTs. The primary endpoint was the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). Secondary outcomes were cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target-lesion or target-vessel revascularization (TLR or TVR), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST). Finally, we used 26 RCTs and a total of 7257 individuals were randomly assigned to one of the 6 stent techniques and included in this network meta-analysis.

Results

In our network meta-analysis, double-kissing (DK) crush was significantly more superior to other 5 stent techniques in MACEs: OR vs. provisional 0.40 (95% CI 0.28-0.55); vs. culotte 0.40 (95% CI 0.26-0.60). DK crush ranked the most effective treatment for MACE (100%), MI (75%), ST (83%), and TLR (100%) in the rank probabilities analysis. In patients with complex bifurcation lesion defined by DEFINITION criteria, DK crush was notably more efficacious than provisional, culotte, and T-stenting/T-stenting and protrusion (TAP) in MACEs (OR vs. provisional 0.26, 95% CI 0.13-0.52) and TLR (OR vs. provisional 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.58).

Conclusion

Compared with other stenting techniques, DK crush had a lower incidence of MACEs in CBD. DK crush was significantly associated with a lower rate of MACEs in patients with complex bifurcation lesions defined by the DEFINITION criterion.

SUBMITTER: Wang R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9242927 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn patients with complex true coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs), Crush or Culotte stenting has been the commonest approaches of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the optimal one remains in debate.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies searched from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP information database, and WangFang Data Information Site, to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of PCI with Crush versus Culotte in patients with CBLs. The primary end point was target lesion revascularization (TLR) and secondary end points were a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiac death (CD), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) by PCI or bypass surgery, and each individual component at long-term follow-up. Furthermore, omitting each study in turn was used to sensitivity analysis for high heterogeneity of studies.ResultsA total of 7 studies were included to perform a meta-analysis, 3 randomized trials and 4 observational studies with 2211 patients, 1281 treated with Crush and 930 with Culotte. There was no significant difference in TLR and MACE between Crush and Culotte [RR 0.76, 95% CI (0.48-1.23), I = 57%; RR 0.78, 95% CI (0.47-1.29), I = 83%, respectively]. ST tended to be lower in patients treated with Crush [RR 0.61, 95% CI (0.37-1.01), I = 23%]. CD and MI were comparable between the 2 groups [RR 0.80, 95% CI (0.43-1.49), I = 0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI (0.49-1.13), I = 32%, respectively]. TVR was also associated with the similar risk [RR 0.76, 95% CI (0.49-1.16), I = 60%]. However, high heterogeneity was detected for TLR, MACE, and TVR, and the source of heterogeneity was DKCRUSH-III study by Chen, SL.ConclusionsIn the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, TLR and MACE were not significant difference between the Crush and Culotte groups, but TLR and MACE were also regarded as high heterogeneity mainly due to better outcomes achieved by DK Crush and there was a trend toward lower ST in the Crush group. Crush, particularly DK Crush, may be superior to conventional Culotte for treatment of CBLs.Prospero registration numberCRD42018111868.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a debate regarding the best stent strategy for unprotected distal left main (LM) bifurcation disease. Among two-stent techniques, double-kissing and crush (DKC) is favored in current guidelines but is complex and requires expertise. Reverse T and Protrusion (rTAP) was shown to be a comparable strategy regarding short-term efficacy and safety, but with reduced procedural complexity.AimTo compare rTAP vs. DKC by optical coherence tomography (OCT) on the intermediate term.Methods52 consecutive patients with complex unprotected LM stenoses (Medina 0,1,1 or 1,1,1) were randomized to either DKC or rTAP and followed-up for a median of 189[180-263] days for clinical and OCT outcomes.ResultsAt follow-up OCT showed similar change in the side branch (SB) ostial area (primary endpoint). The confluence polygon showed a higher percentage of malapposed stent struts in the rTAP group that did not reach statistical significance (rTAP: 9.7[4.4-18.3] % vs. DKC: 3[0.07-10.9] %; p = 0.064). It also showed a trend towards larger neointimal area relative to the stent area (DKC: 8.8 [6.9 to 13.4] % vs. rTAP: 6.5 [3.9 to 8.9] %; p = 0.07), and smaller luminal area (DKC: 9.54[8.09-11.07] mm2 vs. rTAP: 11.21[9.53-12.42] mm²; p = 0.09) in the DKC group. The minimum luminal area in the parent vessel distal to the bifurcation was significantly smaller in the DKC group (DKC: 4.64 [3.64 to 5.34] mm² vs. rTAP: 6.76 [5.20 to 7.29] mm²; p = 0.03). This segment also showed a trend for smaller stent areas (p = 0.05 to 0.09), and a bigger neointimal area relative to the stent area (DKC: 8.94 [5.43 to 10.5]% vs. rTAP: 4.75 [0.08 to 8.5]%; p = 0.06) in the DKC patients. The incidence of clinical events was comparably low in both groups.ConclusionAt 6-months, OCT showed a similar change in the SB ostial area (primary endpoint) in rTAP compared to DKC. There was also a trend for smaller luminal areas in the confluence polygon and the distal parent vessel, and a larger neointimal area relative to the stent area, in DKC, along with a tendency for more malapposed stent struts in rTAP.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03714750, identifier: NCT03714750.