ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2026
Comparative Efficacy of Bifurcation Stenting Techniques for Left Main Disease: A Network Meta-analysis With Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.
Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Anatomy Meets Evidence: Left Main Bifurcation Stenting in the Era of Network Meta-analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention for distal left main bifurcation disease remains technically challenging owing to complex anatomy and high ischemic risk. Although multiple stenting techniques exist, the optimal approach is uncertain. Methods: Eligible strategies comprised provisional stenting, double-kissing (DK) crush, classic crush, minicrush, culotte, T-stenting, TAP, and nanocrush. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis estimated hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs, ranking treatments by Results: Fifteen studies (3794 patients) were included. DK crush consistently ranked highest for most efficacy and safety outcomes. Compared with classic crush, DK crush was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.91), target lesion revascularization (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.84), target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.57), and MACE (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66). Culotte stenting was associated with a higher risk of stent thrombosis (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.07-10.13). No significant differences were observed among strategies for all-cause or cardiac mortality ( Conclusions: DK crush appears to provide the most effective and durable bifurcation strategy for distal left main percutaneous coronary intervention, reducing ischemia-driven revascularization and MACE. Findings support its preferential use in anatomically complex lesions, provided operator expertise and long-term follow-up are ensured.
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.