Clinical outcomes following different stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Pooled result · MACEResult — go to the resultOdds ratio 0.47 95% CI 0.36–0.62Authors' conclusion
Overall, 2-stent techniques were not significantly better than PS in terms of clinical outcomes.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with coronary bifurcation lesions in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2022
- Participants
- 6,890 patients24 RCTs
- Comparison
- Provisional stenting vs upfront 2-stent techniques
- Outcome
- MACE
Methodological detailspairwise meta-analysis, prespecified sensitivity analysis, meta-regression
- Pairwise meta-analysis
- Prespecified sensitivity analysis
- Meta-regression
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Odds ratio
0.47
95% CI 0.36–0.62
P < 0.01
DK-crushvs PS
OR 0.47 (95% CI 0.36–0.62); P < 0.01
Further pooled results
Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in RCTs enrolling only true bifurcation lesions (prespecified sensitivity analysis)
- Lower MACE rate with 2-stent techniques
Side branch lesion length (meta-regression)
- Longer side branch lesion associated with greater benefit from 2-stent strategy, most apparent with mean lesion length >11 mm
Original publication
Clinical outcomes following different stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. EuroIntervention. Published 23 October 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →