A Bayesian meta-analysis of double kissing (DK) crush or provisional stenting for coronary artery bifurcation lesions.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Despite the development of dedicated, two-stent strategies, including the double kissing (DK) crush technique, the ideal technique for coronary artery bifurcation stenting has not been identified. We aimed to compare and determine the absolute risk difference (ARD) of the DK crush technique alone versus provisional stenting approaches for coronary bifurcation lesions, using the Bayesian technique. METHOD: We queried PubMed/MEDLINE to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DK crush technique with provisional stenting for bifurcation lesions, published till January 2023. We used Bayesian methods to calculate the ARD and 95% credible interval (CrI). RESULTS: We included three RCTs, with 916 patients, in the final analysis. The ARD of cardiac death was centered at -0.01 (95% CrI -0.04 to 0.02; Tau 0.02, 85% probability of ARD of DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0). ARD for myocardial infarction was centered at -0.03 (95%CrI -0.9 to 0.03; Tau 0.05, 87% probability of ARD of DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0). ARD for stent thrombosis was centered at 0.00 (95% CrI -0.04 to 0.03, Tau 0.03, 51% probability of ARD for DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0). Finally, ARD for target lesion revascularization was centered at -0.05 (95% CrI -0.08 to -0.03, Tau 0.02, 99.97% probability of ARD for DK crush vs. provisional stenting <0). CONCLUSIONS: Bayesian analysis demonstrated a lower probability of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization, with DK crush compared with provisional stenting techniques, and a minimal probability of difference in stent thrombosis.