Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions: A Review of Contemporary Techniques in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Percutaneous intervention of coronary bifurcation lesions continues to challenge interventional cardiologists. Nonetheless, the past decade has seen an explosion in the development of clinical novel techniques and well-conducted trials validating the relative efficacy and safety of these techniques. For the most part, consensus has emerged regarding the preferred technique, that being provisional stenting of the side-branch (SB), based on the results of several randomised trials that, with the exception of one, have shown no benefit of a two-stent approach, utilising any one of several techniques, including the crush, culotte, or other modifications. Only the double-kiss (DK) crush appears to confer better clinical outcomes, possibly because of the superiority of the technique in optimising access to the SB. Trial data are still pending regarding the efficacy of two-stent techniques in patients with complex SB lesions and with large-calibre SBs. The use of second-generation drug-eluting stents is associated with better results compared to historical data. Preliminary data from studies utilising dedicated bifurcation stents similarly shows favourable results. Bifurcation stenting using bioresorbable vascular scaffolds is at an early stage, with prospective trial data needed to validate this technology for the use in this subset of patients. Modern imaging tools such as intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography, as well as physiological assessment of SB lesions, are now utilised in decision-making regarding stent strategy, though trial data showing better outcomes with routine use of these tools are lacking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".