Provisional Versus Dual Stenting of Left Main Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions (from a Comprehensive Meta-Analysis)

Abstract

The optimal technique for bifurcation of left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenting has been a subject of controversy since the inception of drug-eluting stents. We searched PubMed, Clinical Trials Registry, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2002 through October 2021. A total of 13 studies comparing the use of provisional versus dual stenting in patients with LMCA bifurcation lesions were included. Any major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was considered the primary composite end point. The secondary end points included individual components of MACE, including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. The treatment effect was defined as the log odds ratio (OR) of provisional over dual stenting for cumulative event rate at 3 years. In 12 studies with 8,377 patients included for MACE, the use of a provisional-stenting strategy was associated with a significant reduction of 3-year MACE (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.88) compared with a dual-stenting strategy, primarily driven by target lesion revascularization (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.73). No significant difference was found regarding death (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.21) or myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% Cl 0.61 to 1.54). In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that provisional stenting should be the preferred technique over dual stenting when treating LMCA bifurcation lesions with drug-eluting stents. Further randomized controlled studies compounded with intracoronary imaging comparing the 2 strategies are warranted.