Meta-Analysis of Provisional Versus Systematic Double-Stenting Strategy for Left Main Bifurcation Lesions.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the clinical outcomes with provisional versus double-stenting strategy for left main (LM) bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Despite two recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and several observational reports, the optimal LM bifurcation PCI technique remains controversial.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled-Trials (CENTRAL), Clinicaltrials.gov, International Clinical Trial Registry Platform were leveraged for studies comparing PCI bifurcation techniques for LM coronary lesions using second-generation drug eluting stents (DES). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel or lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis.

RESULTS

Two RCTs and 10 observational studies with 7105 patients were included. Median follow-up duration was 42 months (IQR: 25.7). Double stenting was associated with a trend towards higher incidence of MACE (odds ratio [OR] 1.20; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.53) compared with provisional stenting. This was mainly driven by higher rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR 1.50; 95 % CI 1.07 to 2.11). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, or stent thrombosis. On subgroup analysis according to the study type, provisional stenting was associated with lower MACE and TLR in observational studies, but not in RCTs.

CONCLUSION

For LM bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES, a provisional stenting strategy was associated with a trend towards lower incidence of MACE driven by statistically significant lower rates of TLR, compared with systematic double stenting. These differences were primarily driven by observational studies. Further RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings.