Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29856142›Full record

ReviewKorean circulation journal2018

Understanding the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting.

Hyeon Cheol Gwon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Korean circulation journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. OCT Guidance in Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023
    Review
  9. Drug-Eluting Stents: Technical and Clinical Progress.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Critical aspects of balloon position during final proximal optimization technique (POT) in coronary bifurcation stenting.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Hyeon Cheol GwonDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. hcgwon@naver.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8967-4305

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronary bifurcation stenting is still complex and associated with a high risk of stent thrombosis and restenosis even with contemporary techniques. Although provisional approach has been proved to be the standard strategy of treatment, There is still lack of evidences for multiple steps of the procedure. For so many years we have been focused on the optimization of side branch (SB), but the clinical outcome is mostly dependent on the main vessel (MV) stenting. The optimal expansion of MV stent without the compromise of SB is the ultimate goal to achieve in the coronary bifurcation stenting. Understanding the anatomy and physiology of coronary bifurcation lesion should be the most important step to this goal. The relationship of vessel diameter between branches and the anatomical and functional significance of plaque shift and carina shift are two most important concepts to understand. They are the science behind the predictors of SB occlusion, and the rationale of proximal optimization technique and final kissing ballooning. This specific review will be devoted to review those concepts as well as clinical evidences to support them.

Indexed as

Bifurcation lesionPercutaneous coronary interventionStents

Identifiers

PMID29856142
PMCPMC5986747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.