Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41766788›Full record

ReviewInterventional cardiology (London, England)2026

Navigating the Left Main Bifurcation: Which Stenting Strategy Best Minimises Major Adverse Cardiac Events and Target Lesion Revascularisation? A Network Meta-analysis.

Suryono Suryono, Muhammad Farhan Hibatulloh, Alfiyah Ramadhani, Candra Agung Wibisana, Achmad Ilham Tohari, Muhammad Rijal Fachrudin Hidayat, Muhammad Irsyad Amien, Muhammad Naufal Hibatullah, Hazbina Fauqi Ramadhan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interventional cardiology (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Suryono SuryonoDepartment of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jember - Dr Soebandi General Hospital Jember, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9022-9674
Muhammad Farhan HibatullohFaculty of Medicine, Universitas Jember Jember, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7711-8644
Alfiyah RamadhaniFaculty of Medicine, Universitas Jember Jember, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1708-8115
Candra Agung WibisanaFaculty of Medicine, Universitas Jember Jember, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1414-8339
Achmad Ilham TohariFaculty of Medicine, Universitas Jember Jember, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4465-2011
Muhammad Rijal Fachrudin HidayatFaculty of Medicine, Universitas Jember Jember, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5956-6805
Muhammad Irsyad AmienFaculty of Medicine, Universitas Jember Jember, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5672-6957
Muhammad Naufal HibatullahFaculty of Medicine, Universitas Jember Jember, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5526-1992
Hazbina Fauqi RamadhanKalisat General Hospital Jember, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3562-3887

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Left main bifurcation lesions (LMBL) present considerable challenges in percutaneous coronary intervention due to the increased risk of restenosis, thrombosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Determining the optimal stenting technique remains crucial to improving patient outcomes. Methods: This network meta-analysis systematically reviewed 19 eligible studies assessing diverse stenting strategies' effects on MACE and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 12-month follow-up. Random effects models were used and studies were selected using the PICO framework - population, intervention, comparison, outcome. Key techniques evaluated included provisional single-stenting, doublestenting (culotte, T-stenting and small protrusion (T/TAP), V-stenting and standard crush) and double kissing (DK) crush. Quality and risk of bias were appraised using appropriate validated instruments. Results: DK crush demonstrated significantly lower TLR (RR 0.58; 95% CI [0.38-0.88]) and MACE (RR 0.51; 95% CI [0.36-0.72]) compared with single-stenting. Pooled double-stenting techniques increased TLR risk (RR 1.29; 95% CI [1.06-1.58]). Detailed ranking models consistently placed DK crush as the most effective, with p-values up to 0.95. Heterogeneity and reporting bias were minimal, supporting the robustness of these findings. Provisional stenting remains suitable for less complex bifurcations, while culotte and T/TAP were associated with higher risks. Conclusion: DK crush is the preferred strategy for complex LMBL as it minimises MACE and TLR. Provisional stenting is reasonable in simpler anatomical scenarios. Clinical decision-making should incorporate lesion complexity, patient characteristics and operator expertise. Further large-scale randomised trials are warranted to validate these results.

Indexed as

Major adverse cardiac eventspercutaneous coronary interventionstenting strategiestarget lesion revascularisation

Identifiers

PMID41766788
PMCPMC12937070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.