SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Comparing cross-over stenting and focal ostial stenting for ostial left anterior descending coronary artery lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. 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.
- Clinical and procedural outcomes of ostial left anterior descending artery intervention with or without crossover to left-main.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Outcomes in provisional one-stent versus dedicated two-stent coronary bifurcation stenting techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ideal revascularization approach for ostial left anterior descending coronary artery (L.A.D.) lesions continues to be a matter of debate. Two primary stenting strategies are often contemplated for managing these lesions: focal ostial stenting (F.O.S.) and the provisional strategy, alternatively termed cross-over stenting (C.O.S.) from the LM to the L.A.D. artery.
aimOur objective is to assess the efficacy of C.O.S. vs. F.O.S. techniques in patients with ostial L.A.D. lesions who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (P.C.I.).
methodsWe systematically searched five electronic databases to identify relevant studies. The data was pooled as odds ratio (O.R.) with its 95% confidence interval (C.I.) using the DerSimonian-Laird random effect model in STATA 17 MP. Significance was determined by a p-value > 0.05 between intervention subgroups.
resultsNine articles with a total of 1492 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled O.R. for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) was 0.88 (95% C.I. [0.39, 1.99], P = 0.76), indicating comparable rates between F.O.S. and C.O.S. For all-cause death, the O.R. was 1.46 (95% C.I. [0.53, 4.02], P = 0.46), with no significant differences between the compared techniques. Cardiovascular death showed no preference between treatments (O.R.=0.99, 95% C.I. [0.30, 3.31], P = 0.99), and similarly for myocardial infarction (O.R.=0.74, 95% C.I. [0.38, 1.44], P = 0.37).
conclusionOur meta-analysis comparing C.O.S. and F.O.S. for L.A.D. lesions revealed similar efficacy in clinical and angiographic outcomes.
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.