Balloon crush: Treatment of bifurcation lesions using the crush stenting technique as adapted for transradial approach of percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent advent of drug-eluting stents has allowed the crush stenting technique to be adopted, thus simplifying the treatment of bifurcation coronary artery lesions. However, this can only be achieved in 7 Fr or greater guiding catheters, hence precluding most transradial percutaneous coronary interventions that are usually undertaken using 6 Fr or less guiding catheters. We assessed the feasibility of balloon stent crush as a stepwise procedure in achieving bifurcation crush stenting in 6 Fr transradial percutaneous coronary interventions. Since it is not possible to place two stents through a 6 Fr guiding catheter, we have adapted the crush stenting technique by initially placing a stent in the side branch and a balloon in the main vessel. The side branch stent is then deployed against the main vessel balloon that is later inflated, crushing the side branch stent within the main vessel. The main vessel is then stented and the side branch recrossed for kissing inflations. Seven patients (five males; age range, 47-78 years) with bifurcation lesions were treated using the above-described technique without major complications. Balloon crush of the side branch stent were successfully achieved in all cases without balloon trapping. In six cases where side branch recrossing was attempted, all were successful and kissing balloon inflations were undertaken in five cases. We have demonstrated that the modified crush stenting technique is feasible and can be safely adapted for use in a 6 Fr transradial percutaneous coronary intervention approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".