Active versus conventional side branch protection strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

The side branch (SB) provisional stenting strategy is currently the recommended approach for most coronary bifurcation lesions. However, this strategy may result in SB deterioration, which is associated with an increased incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) and may adversely affect the long-term progno-sis. Various techniques for SB protection (SB-P) have been developed to reduce SB occlusion and improve the clinical prognosis. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of an active SB-P strategy of jailed balloon technique, balloon-stent kissing technique, and jailed Corsair technique versus the conventional SB-P strategy based on jailed wire technique. This meta-analysis included 5 studies (4 randomized and 1 observational) involving a total of 1,174 patients in whom the active and conventional SB-P strategies were compared. Fixed-and random-effects models were used to calculate summary risk ratios (RRs). The risk of SB occlusion was significantly lower in active SB-P strategy [RR 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.73 in fixed-effect model; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31-0.87 in random-effect model]. The risk of PMI was similar between the two strategies (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.30-1.33 in fixed-effect model; RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.20-2.48 in random-effect model). The rate of long-term major adverse cardiovascular events was similar between the groups (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.15-1.48 in fixed-effect model; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16-1.52 in random-effect model). The active SB-P strategy in coronary bifurcation lesions is associated with reduced SB deterioration, but it does not decrease PMI or improve the long-term prognosis.