Comparison of Outcomes Between 1- and 2-Stent Techniques for Medina Classification 0.0.1 Coronary Bifurcation Lesions
Main findingResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 1.034 95% CI 0.541–1.977Study context
- Participants
- 345 participants
- Exposure
- 1-stent vs 2-stent strategy
- 1 stentn = 209
- 2 stentn = 136reference
- Outcome
- MACE:
- All-cause death
- MI
- Target vessel revascularization
- Stent thrombosis
- Follow-up
- 800 days
Methodological detailspooled patient-level analysis of COBIS II, COBIS III and RAIN registries, patient-level merged registries, multicentre
- Pooled patient-level analysis of COBIS II, COBIS III and RAIN registries
- Patient-level merged registries
- Multicentre
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
1.034
95% CI 0.541–1.977
P = 0.92
By group
1 stentvs 2 stent
HR 1.034 (95% CI 0.541–1.977); P = 0.92
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Use of 1-stent strategy over time
- 2003-2009
- 36.0%
- 2010-2014
- 47.4%
- 2015-2017
- 90.4%
- Trend
- P for trend < 0.001
Major adverse cardiac event (MACE), stratified into 3 groups (1-stent crossover only, 1-stent with strut opening, 2-stent)
- Risk of MACE not significantly different across the 3 groups
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Comparison of Outcomes Between 1- and 2-Stent Techniques for Medina Classification 0.0.1 Coronary Bifurcation Lesions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Published 9 August 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →