Single- Versus 2-Stent Strategies for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials With Long-Term Follow-up.

BACKGROUND

The majority of coronary bifurcation lesions are treated with a provisional single-stent strategy rather than an up-front 2-stent strategy. This approach is supported by multiple randomized controlled clinical trials with short- to medium-term follow-up; however, long-term follow-up data is evolving from many data sets.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating long-term outcomes (≥1 year) according to treatment strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions. Nine randomized controlled trials with 3265 patients reported long-term clinical outcomes at mean weighted follow-up of 3.1±1.8 years. Provisional single stenting was associated with lower all-cause mortality (2.94% versus 4.23%; risk ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-1.00; =0.049; I=0). There was no difference in major adverse cardiac events (15.8% versus 15.4%; =0.79), myocardial infarction (4.8% versus 5.5%; =0.51), target lesion revascularization (9.3% versus 7.6%; =0.19), or stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.6%; =0.28) between the groups. Prespecified sensitivity analysis of long-term mortality at a mean of 4.7 years of follow-up showed that the provisional single-stent strategy was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (3.9% versus 6.2%; risk ratio: 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.97; =0.036; I=0).

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention using a provisional single-stent strategy is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality at long-term follow-up.