SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2019
Cardiovascular outcomes associated with crush versus provisional stenting techniques for bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary Bifurcation Stenting: Review of Current Techniques and Evidence.Current cardiology reviews · 2023Review
- A Novel guide extension assisted stenting technique for coronary bifurcation lesions.World journal of cardiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for bifurcation lesions has often been challenging for Interventionists. Application of the correct intra-procedural technique is vital to generate beneficial outcomes after PCI. We aimed to systematically compare the post interventional cardiovascular outcomes which were reported using crush versus provisional stenting techniques for bifurcation lesions.
methodsA computerized search was carried out through Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central and through www.ClinicalTrials.gov for English publications comparing crush versus the provisional stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions during PCI. Major adverse cardiac events, all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target vessel and target lesion revascularizations were the endpoints in this analysis. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated during statistical analysis to represent the data.
resultsSix studies consisting of a total number of 2220 participants (1085 participants were assigned to the crush stenting technique and 1135 participants were assigned to the provisional stenting technique) enrolled between years 2004 and 2016 were included in this analysis. During a follow-up time period from six to sixty months, major adverse cardiac events (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59-0.91; P = 0.005), target vessel revascularization (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.89; P = 0.01) and target lesion revascularization (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.85; P = 0.003) were significantly lower in patients who were assigned to the crush stenting technique. However, all-cause mortality (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.48-1.68; P = 0.74), cardiac death (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.29-1.08; P = 0.08), myocardial infarction (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.62-1.27; P = 0.53) and stent thrombosis (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.36-1.42; P = 0.34) were not significantly different.
conclusionIn patients with coronary bifurcation lesions undergoing PCI, crush stenting technique was associated with significantly lower major adverse cardiac events and repeated revascularization without any change in mortality, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis when compared to the provisional technique showing a benefit of crush over the provisional stenting technique during PCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.