Physiological evaluation of the provisional side-branch intervention strategy for bifurcation lesions using instantaneous wave-free ratio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The provisional side-branch intervention strategy remains the gold standard approach for repair of coronary bifurcation lesions. We performed this study to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of using the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for physiological assessment in provisional side-branch repair of bifurcation lesions. METHODS: Fifty patients with coronary bifurcation lesions were equally divided into two groups: (I) an iFR-guided side-branch intervention group and (II) a conventional group, in which the operator selected a different interventional method. After the procedure, we performed a six-month follow-up for postoperative ejection fraction (EF) and clinical cardiac outcomes. RESULTS: Our results showed that the iFR measurement procedure was technically feasible in bifurcation lesions, with no procedural-related complications. Moreover, measuring iFR significantly predicted the side-branch percent stenosis after stenting of the main branch (r = -0.81, p < 0.0001). Compared to the conventional group, the iFR-guided group showed a significantly shorter procedural time (MD = -14.6 min, 95% CI [-27.7, -1.4]) and hospital stay duration (MD = -0.92 days, 95% CI [-1.6, -0.28]). However, no significant differences were recorded between the iFR-guided and conventional groups in terms of postoperative EF (p = 0.9), six-month heart failure class (p = 0.89), or post-interventional angina (p = 0.066). CONCLUSION: Using iFR for physiological assessment during the provisional side-branch intervention strategy can reduce the procedural time and length of hospital stay in patients with bifurcation lesions. Larger trials should compare the clinical outcomes of iFR to other physiological assessment methods such as the fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02785510.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".