Coronary Bifurcation PCI—Part II: Advanced Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for bifurcation lesions involves complex decision-making informed by anatomic, hemodynamic, technical, and clinical factors. Building on the procedural foundations discussed in the companion paper in this two-part series, this second paper focuses on advanced considerations in bifurcation PCI. Factors associated with side branch (SB) compromise are discussed, including bifurcation angle and distribution of plaque location, along with strategies for SB protection and SB rewiring. Outcomes of landmark randomized controlled trials of provisional versus two-stent approaches, as well as specific two-stent techniques, are summarized. Based on these factors, an algorithmic approach for bifurcation PCI is outlined. Lastly, the use of drug-coated balloons, dedicated bifurcation stents, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds, bioadaptor stents, physiologic testing, intravascular imaging, and other emerging innovations are explored to provide a perspective on the future of bifurcation PCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".