Effectiveness of Stent Implantation Using Simple or Complex Strategy for the Treatment of Major Coronary Bifurcation Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of intracoronary stent implantation using simple or complex strategy for the treatment of major coronary bifurcation lesions.Methods: A total of 38 patients with coronary artery bifurcation lesion treated with stenting between January 1998 and June 2002 in our lab. In group A (n = 28), a simple approach (the bifurcation lesions were pre-dilatated with the kissing balloon technique and then stents were implanted only in the main branch) was pursued. In the other group (group B, n = 10), both the main vessel and the side branch were stented using 'T' stenting technique or 'Y' stenting technique. The follow-up lasted at lest 6 months and major adverse cardiac events (including angina, acute myocardial infarction emergence CAGB, and cardiac death) were recorded.Results: There was no significant difference in baseline data including clinical and angiographic characteristics between two groups. Angiographic success was 89.3% (25/28) in the side branches and 100% in the main branch in A group. Three patients presented a residual stenosis 50% in the side branch and the lesions were successful stented subsequently. Angiographic success was 100% in the all the branches in B group. During the follow-up, unstable angina was developed in 5 (17.8%) patients in A group and in 2 (28.6%) patients in B group. No other major adverse cardiac events occurred in both group.Conclusions: For the treatment of major coronary bifurcation lesions, a complex strategy of stenting both branches provided no advantage versus a simpler strategy of stenting only the main branch.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".