Clinical outcomes following different stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Controversy still exists regarding the optimal treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions.


AIMS
We aimed to analyse the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare outcomes following different bifurcation stenting techniques.


METHODS
We systematically searched for RCTs comparing different techniques published up to July 2022. We then conducted a pairwise meta-analysis to compare outcomes between provisional stenting (PS) versus upfront 2-stent techniques. Moreover, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare all strategies with each other. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).


RESULTS
Twenty-four RCTs (6,890 patients) analysed PS, T-stenting, double-kissing (DK)-crush, crush, or culotte stenting. The pairwise meta-analysis did not reveal a significant difference between the PS and 2-stent techniques. However, the prespecified sensitivity analysis, which included RCTs exclusively enrolling patients with true bifurcation lesions, showed a lower rate of MACE following 2-stent techniques, and meta-regression indicated that a longer side branch lesion was associated with a greater benefit from the 2-stent strategy, which was the most apparent in RCTs with a mean lesion length >11 mm. NMA revealed that DK-crush was associated with the lowest MACE rate (odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.62; p<0.01; PS as a reference).


CONCLUSIONS
Overall, 2-stent techniques were not significantly better than PS in terms of clinical outcomes. However, the results of the sensitivity analysis suggested that there might be a benefit of a 2-stent approach in selected patients with true bifurcation lesions, especially in the case of long side branch lesions. An NMA revealed that DK-crush was associated with the lowest event rates when compared with other techniques.