SynthesisIndian heart journal
A Bayesian meta-analysis of double kissing (DK) crush or provisional stenting for coronary artery bifurcation lesions.
Synthesis in Indian heart journal. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Double-Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting for Coronary Bifurcations: A 1-Year Follow-up Study in Vietnam.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDespite the development of dedicated, two-stent strategies, including the double kissing (DK) crush technique, the ideal technique for coronary artery bifurcation stenting has not been identified. We aimed to compare and determine the absolute risk difference (ARD) of the DK crush technique alone versus provisional stenting approaches for coronary bifurcation lesions, using the Bayesian technique.
methodWe queried PubMed/MEDLINE to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DK crush technique with provisional stenting for bifurcation lesions, published till January 2023. We used Bayesian methods to calculate the ARD and 95% credible interval (CrI).
resultsWe included three RCTs, with 916 patients, in the final analysis. The ARD of cardiac death was centered at -0.01 (95% CrI: -0.04 to 0.02; Tau: 0.02, 85% probability of ARD of DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0). ARD for myocardial infarction was centered at -0.03 (95%CrI: -0.9 to 0.03; Tau: 0.05, 87% probability of ARD of DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0). ARD for stent thrombosis was centered at 0.00 (95% CrI: -0.04 to 0.03, Tau: 0.03, 51% probability of ARD for DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0). Finally, ARD for target lesion revascularization was centered at -0.05 (95% CrI: -0.08 to -0.03, Tau: 0.02, 99.97% probability of ARD for DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0).
conclusionsBayesian analysis demonstrated a lower probability of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization, with DK crush compared with provisional stenting techniques, and a minimal probability of difference in stent thrombosis.
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.