Coronary Bifurcation PCI—Part I: Fundamentals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of bifurcation lesions remain one of the most technically challenging areas in interventional cardiology. Careful planning and execution are needed to preserve main vessel and side branch patency, with evolving evidence guiding the choice between provisional and two-stent strategies, and between individual techniques. This narrative review, which represents the first installment of a two-part series, synthesizes current knowledge on bifurcation PCI, detailing the anatomical classifications, lesion assessment tools, procedural planning, and execution of techniques including T and Protrusion (TAP), double-kissing (DK) crush, mini-crush, culotte, V-stent, and emerging modifications. We contextualize the choice of strategy within lesion complexity, procedural goals, and patient-specific considerations. This review is intended as a visual, practical, technique-focused reference for interventionalists and interventional trainees involved in the management of bifurcation lesions.
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".