IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0197580.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should kissing balloon inflation after main vessel stenting be routine in the one-stent approach? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Author

Listed:
  • Ming Zhong
  • Biao Tang
  • Qiang Zhao
  • Jian Cheng
  • Qiangsong Jin
  • Shenwen Fu

Abstract

The KBI (kissing balloon inflation) technique is considered the default strategy for the two-stent approach in real world practice. Studies comparing KBI and No-KBI in patients undergoing the one-stent approach have reported conflicting results. The meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the KBI strategy and the No-KBI strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions in the one-stent approach. Five randomized studies were included, and a total of 1264 patients were involved in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was cardiac death. The secondary end points were stent thrombosis, MI (myocardial infarction), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and main vessel and side branch restenosis. Compared with the No-KBI strategy, the KBI strategy was associated with a significant reduction in side branch restenosis (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.30–0.64, p

Suggested Citation

  • Ming Zhong & Biao Tang & Qiang Zhao & Jian Cheng & Qiangsong Jin & Shenwen Fu, 2018. "Should kissing balloon inflation after main vessel stenting be routine in the one-stent approach? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197580
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197580
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197580
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197580&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0197580?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197580. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.