Safety and Efficacy of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL) are one fifth of all coronary lesions and they do not have an optimal strategy for stenting yet. Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) are novel inventions proposed to be the optimal solution. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of BRS in treating CBL by comparing it to dedicated bifurcation stents (DBS). Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, searching databases such as ScienceDirect, EMBASE, MEDLINE, NIH, TRIP, PUBMED, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The risk of bias was assessed by MINORS and modified Cowley's criteria. Q statistic was used for heterogeneity testing and a meta-analysis was conducted using the "meta" package in the R software application. Results: Fourteen studies were included with an average follow-up period of twelve months. Almost 80% of the participants were male (p-value= 0.148) and around two-thirds were smokers. Meta-analysis was performed for myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and stent thrombosis (ST). These showed statistically non-significant differences, with a slight trend favouring BRS except with stent thrombosis. Conclusion: There is a lack of randomised trials on the topic, which may be an area for further research. But the results showed favourable yet statistically insignificant outcomes for BRS except for ST, an issue that can be addressed with technological advancement.