Key result
Provisional one-stenting remains standard for most non-LM bifurcation lesions, reserving two stents for complex anatomy.
Why the study?
Coronary bifurcation lesion management remains challenging with elevated MACE, and ongoing debate persists regarding whether a one-stent or two-stent strategy provides better outcomes.
This review highlights that the provisional one-stent approach remains the standard strategy for non-left main coronary bifurcation stenting, emphasizing the importance of techniques like proximal optimization (POT).
Provisional stenting remains appropriate for most non-LM bifurcations; supports current practice but leaves optimal refinements open pending RCTs.
Coronary bifurcation lesion management is challenging even in this modern era of drug-eluting stents (DES). A debate always exists as to what mode of treatment is better–one-stent or two-stent strategy. As in hospital and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) are more in the follow-up, what improvements in management strategy are required in relation to bifurcation lesions? We have more questions than answers for this type of lesion. In this article, we try to analyze these issues.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maddury Jyotsna (2020) conducted a review in Coronary bifurcation lesions. Coronary bifurcation stenting strategies (one-stent vs. two-stent) was evaluated. Provisional one-stent strategy remains the standard approach for most non-left main coronary bifurcation lesions, while two-stent strategies are reserved for complex anatomy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: