ReviewThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2026
Outcomes in provisional one-stent versus dedicated two-stent coronary bifurcation stenting techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 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
backgroundThe optimal long-term strategy for coronary bifurcation PCI remains debated. Earlier meta-analyses limited to long-term data suggested better outcomes with a provisional approach versus routine two-stent techniques.
methodsWe conducted an updated, comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing provisional versus two-stent strategies. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through September 2025. Fifteen RCTs (n = 6978) met inclusion criteria. Using Stata 16.1, random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for prespecified outcomes.
resultsRelative risks (95% CIs) for provisional vs two-stent were: all-cause mortality 0.97 (0.72-1.30); cardiovascular mortality 0.98 (0.68-1.40); myocardial infarction 0.86 (0.62-1.19); target lesion revascularization 1.07 (0.80-1.44); stent thrombosis 1.36 (0.81-2.29); and MACE 1.27 (0.81-1.99). Across endpoints, pooled estimates did not show statistically significant differences between strategies.
conclusionIn this updated synthesis of randomized trials, the available evidence did not demonstrate clear superiority of either provisional or two-stent strategies for major clinical outcomes. Unlike prior long-term-only analyses, we did not observe higher mortality or myocardial infarction with two-stent approaches. Technique selection should remain individualized according to lesion anatomy, procedural complexity, and operator expertise. These findings should not be interpreted as proof of equivalence or non-inferiority. Trial registration CRD420251167534.
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.