Abstract
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.