Comparison of Different Stenting Techniques of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Network Meta-Analysis of 7601 Patients

Abstract

IntroductionIntervention on coronary bifurcations lesions (CBL) is challenging. While provisional side branch (PS) stenting is the recommended method in most cases, there is no consensus on the preferred 2-stent technique.Material and methodsWe performed a network meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing stenting techniques in CBL with reported clinical outcomes. A mixed treatment comparison model generation was performed to compare culotte, T and protrusion (TAP), crush and provisional techniques.ResultsWe included 14 RCT and 14 observational studies comprising 7,601 patients among whom 2,516 were treated with PS, 792 with TAP, 1,493 with culotte and 2,808 with crush. A Bayesian network meta-analysis showed a significant rate reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (OR=0.73; 95%CI 0.52-0.99) and a trend for reduction in lesion revascularization (OR=0.72; 95%CI 0.48-1.11) and myocardial infarction (OR=0.62; 95%CI 0.3-1.08) with the crush technique, mainly driven by the double kissing (DK) crush, compared with all other stenting techniques. Other clinical outcomes, including mortality and stent thrombosis (ST) did not differ significantly between methods.ConclusionsThe crush technique, and especially DKcrush, is associated with improved outcomes compared to culotte, T and protrusion (TAP) and provisional techniques for CBL treatment. Further research is required to determine the optimal stenting technique for CBL.