Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/29332
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorThakur U.en
dc.contributor.authorDundon B.K.en
dc.contributor.authorNicholls S.J.en
dc.contributor.authorCameron J.D.en
dc.contributor.authorMirzaee S.en
dc.contributor.authorIsa M.en
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-14T09:54:41Zen
dc.date.available2021-05-14T09:54:41Zen
dc.date.copyright2020en
dc.date.created20200329en
dc.date.issued2020-03-29en
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Invasive Cardiology. 33 (2) (pp 42-48), 2020. Date of Publication: 2020.en
dc.identifier.issn1042-3931en
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/29332en
dc.description.abstractBackground. Despite the high prevalence of coronary bifurcation lesions in routine interventional cardiology practice, the best strategy for managing this challenging lesion subset remains debatable. Due to potential for complications, the routine practice of side-branch (SB) predilation is controversial. Methods. An electronic search was performed of online databases up until April 2018 for studies reporting periprocedural angiographic outcomes comparing provisional main-branch stenting with and without SB predilation. Random-effects model odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. Results. Eight studies were selected for a qualitative review, with 47.3% (1367/2890) of included subjects having angiographic outcomes following SB predilation reported. Of these, four studies included details of periangiographic outcomes comparing two groups. Bifurcation lesions stented without SB predilation demonstrated lower odds of requiring further SB intervention compared with lesions receiving upfront SB predilation (OR, 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-3.47; I2=21%; P<.001). No difference was demonstrated regarding final SB TIMI flow <3, SB dissection, or intraprocedural SB occlusion. Although the odds of performing final kissing-balloon inflation were in favor of the group without SB predilation (OR, 1.62; 95%CI, 1.11-2.37; I2=61%; P=.01), there was no statistical difference in long-term major cardiovascular outcome (MACE) between the two groups (risk ratio, 1.29; 95%CI, 0.94-1.75; I2=11%; P=.33). Conclusion. SB predilation during coronary bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention did not alter overall procedural angiographic outcomes. However, SB predilation is associated with increased SB intervention, including increased requirement for SB stenting, without demonstrable long-term MACE benefit, compared with a standard strategy without SB predilation.Copyright © 2020 HMP Communications. All rights reserved.en
dc.languageEnglishen
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherHMP Communicationsen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Invasive Cardiologyen
dc.subject.meshcoronary bifurcation lesion-
dc.subject.meshcardiovascular procedure-
dc.subject.meshpercutaneous coronary intervention-
dc.subject.meshcoronary stent-
dc.subject.meshside branch predilation-
dc.subject.meshangiography-
dc.titleImpact of side-branch predilation on angiographic outcomes in non-left main coronary bifurcation lesions.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.affiliationCardiology (MonashHeart)-
dc.type.studyortrialSystematic review and/or meta-analysis-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen
dc.identifier.pubmedid31958071 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=31958071]en
dc.identifier.source2005253831en
dc.identifier.institution(Mirzaee, Thakur, Cameron, Nicholls, Dundon) Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash Heart, Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (Isa) Monash University, Monash School of Medicine, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.description.addressB.K. Dundon, Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, MonashHeart, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia, Monash University, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia. E-mail: benjamin.dundon@monashhealth.orgen
dc.description.publicationstatusEmbaseen
dc.rights.statementCopyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.en
dc.subect.keywordsBifurcation Left main interventions Percutaneous coronary interventionen
dc.identifier.authoremailDundon B.K.; benjamin.dundon@monashhealth.orgen
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeArticle-
Appears in Collections:Articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

30
checked on Feb 7, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in Monash Health Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.