Provisional T‐stenting and kissing balloon in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: Results of the French multicenter “TULIPE” study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In previous prospective studies, a strategy of (a) stenting of the main branch, (b) provisional T-stenting of the side branch, and (c) final kissing balloon inflation, was associated with high success and low target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates on the long-term. OBJECTIVES: To examine the performance of this strategy in a multicenter study. METHODS: Consecutive patients were treated at 14 French medical centers for de novo coronary bifurcation lesions with the same technique used. Immediate results and clinically-driven TLR at 7 months were examined. RESULTS: The mean reference diameters of the main and side branches were 3.2 +/- 0.6 mm and 2.4 +/- 0.5 mm, respectively. The side branch was stented in 34% of patients. A <30% residual stenosis in the main branch was achieved in 99%, <50% in the side branch in 90%, and both in 89% of procedures. The in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event were a Q-wave and 5 non-Qwaves MI (0.54% and 2.7%). At 7 months of follow-up, 3 patients (1.76%) had died, 1 suffered a non-Q-wave MI (0.59%), and 28 (15.88%) underwent TLR. By multivariate analysis, a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (OR: 0.934), moderate calcifications (OR: 7.86), and non-use of the "jailed" wire technique (OR: 4.26) were associated with reinterventions during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of provisional T-stenting with a tubular stent and final kissing balloon angioplasty for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions was safe and associated with a low TLR rate at 7 months. This strategy should be applicable to the new era of drug eluting stents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".