Long-term outcomes of provisional stenting compared with a two-stent strategy for bifurcation lesions: a meta-analysis of randomised trials
The optimal interventional technique for addressing coronary bifurcation lesions is debatable. Long-term clinical outcomes with provisional stenting (PS) compared with a two-stent (TS) strategy for bifurcation lesions are scarce. We aim to perform the first meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to explore long-term outcomes comparing both strategies.
An electronic search was performed for online databases until August 2016 for RCTs comparing PS with TS for bifurcation lesions reporting outcomes at 1 year of follow-up or more. Random effects model risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for outcomes of interest.
Eight RCTs with a total of 2778 patients reported long-term clinical outcomes. At mean follow-up of 3.0±1.6 years, PS was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; p=0.04) compared with TS for bifurcation lesions. No difference was observed with PS compared with TS regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) or stent thrombosis (ST). In a sensitivity analysis limited to trials with follow-up duration ≥3 years, PS was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR=0.57; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.88; p=0.01), MACE (RR=0.71; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97; p=0.03) and MI (RR=0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; p=0.04) compared with TS, at mean follow-up of 4.6±0.7 years. The risk of TLR and ST remained similar with both strategies (RR=0.81; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.15; p=0.24; and RR=0.75; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.84; p=0.67 respectively). Meta-regression analyses identified increased risk of MACE with PS in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (p=0.05).
PS may be associated with a long-term mortality benefit compared with a TS strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions.
Publisher URL: http://heart.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/103/18/1427
Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.
Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.