Single versus Double Stenting in NSTEMI Patients with Complex Left Main Bifurcation Disease

Comparison between provisional and dual systematic stenting approach for left main bifurcation disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite recent advancements, challenges persist in determining the optimal stenting strategy for LM bifurcation disease. Hence, this systematic review aims to compare single provisional and systematic dual stenting for managing LM bifurcation disease. A systematic search was performed until January 14, 2024. For the effect measure, risk ratios (RRs) was calculated. This study included 22 studies with 10776 participants. The all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality revealed comparable outcomes between provisional and dual-systematic stenting (RR 1.13, CI95 %: 0.87-1.47, p 0.36, I2 59 %; RR 1.16, CI95 %: 0.73-1.84, p 0.63, I2 80 %). In addition, MACE, MI, TLR, TVR, and in stent thrombosis also showed similar findings. Subgroup analysis revealed that cohort studies was the source of heterogeneity in all-cause mortality, stent thrombosis, and TLR. This meta-analysis suggests comparable outcomes between provisional and dual-systematic stenting in managing LM bifurcation disease. Further study is needed to validate the outcomes of novel techniques.

Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for coronary left main (LM) bifurcation lesions remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared the medium and long-term follow-up clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies of LM bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

We systematically identified studies published within 5 years comparing single vs. systematic double stenting strategies for LM bifurcation lesions. The primary endpoint was medium-term (1 year) and long-term (at least 3 years) all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), target lesion revascularization (TLR), overall occurrence of stent thrombosis (ST), cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI).

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies with 7,318 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of the medium-term follow-up clinical outcomes, our pooled analysis showed that use of the systematic dual stenting strategy was associated with a lower ST risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.89, P = 0.02) and cardiac death risk (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21-0.89, P = 0.02) compared to the single stenting strategy; there was no significant difference between the two strategies regarding rates of all-cause death, MACE, TLR, and MI. Patients with long-term follow-up showed comparable observed clinical outcomes between the two strategies. Most importantly, for patients with true LM bifurcation, the risk of all-cause death, ST, and CV mortality following the systematic dual stenting strategy was significantly lower than the single stenting strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with LM bifurcation lesions, both the systematic dual stenting strategy and single stenting strategy demonstrated comparable results in terms of all-cause mortality during medium-term and long-term follow-up. However, the systematic dual stenting strategy showed a tendency towards lower incidence of ST and CV mortality compared to the single stenting strategy during medium-term follow-up. Consequently, the systematic dual stenting strategy yielded superior clinical outcomes for patients with LM bifurcation lesions.

Left Main Coronary Artery Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Left main coronary artery (LMCA) revascularization remains a critical part of coronary artery disease (CAD) management as it improves patients’ prognoses by reducing all-cause and cardiac mortality [...]