Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, part II: implanting two stents. The 16th expert consensus document of the European Bifurcation Club
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Bifurcation Club (EBC) supports a continuous review of the field of coronary artery bifurcation interventions and aims to facilitate a scientific discussion and an exchange of ideas on the management of bifurcation disease. The recent focus of meetings and consensus statements has been on the technical issues in bifurcation stenting, recognising that the final result of a bifurcation procedure and the long-term outcome for our patients are strongly influenced by factors, including preprocedural strategy, stenting technique selection, performance of optimal procedural steps, the ability to identify and correct complications and finally, and most important, the overall performance of the operator. Continuous refinement of bifurcation stenting techniques and the promotion of education and training in bifurcation stenting techniques represent a major clinical need. Accordingly, the consensus from the latest EBC meeting in Brussels, October 2021, was to promote education and training in bifurcation stenting based on the EBC principle. Part II of this 16th EBC consensus document aims to provide a step-by-step overview of the pitfalls and technical troubleshooting during the implantation of the second stent either in the provisional stenting (PS) strategy or in upfront 2-stent techniques (e.g., 2-stent PS pathway and double kissing crush stenting). Finally, a detailed overview and discussion of the numerous modalities available to provide continuous education and technical training in bifurcation stenting techniques are discussed, with consideration of their future application in enhancing training and practice in coronary bifurcation lesion treatment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".