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, 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.