ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology2022
Clinical Outcomes Following Simple or Complex Stenting for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stent placement remains a challenge for coronary bifurcation lesions. While both simple and complex stenting strategies are available, it is unclear which one results in better clinical outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to explore the long-term prognosis following treatment with the 2 stenting strategies. Method: Randomized controlled trials found from searches of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were included in this meta-analysis. The complex stent placement strategy was identified as the control group, and the simple stent placement strategy was identified as the experimental group. Data were synthesized with a random effects model. The quality of the randomized controlled trials was assessed by Jadad scale scores. The clinical endpoints at 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years were analyzed. Results: A total of 11 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2494 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The odds ratio [OR] of the major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 6 months was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.35; Conclusion: Compared to the complex stenting strategy, the simple stenting strategy can better reduce the occurrence of long-term MACEs for coronary bifurcation lesions.
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.