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.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.