ReviewCurrent cardiology reviews2023
Coronary Bifurcation Stenting: Review of Current Techniques and Evidence.
Review in Current cardiology reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Efficacy of Bifurcation Stenting Techniques for Left Main Disease: A Network Meta-analysis With Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- Drug-Coated Balloons in Side Branch Treatment in True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Challenges and Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Advancements in Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Techniques: Insights From Computational and Bench Testing Studies.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary bifurcation stenting constitutes 20% of all PCI performed. Given the extensive prevalence of bifurcation lesions, various techniques have sought to optimally stent the bifurcation to improve revascularization while also decreasing rates of stent thrombosis and lesion recurrence. Advanced techniques, such as planned two-stent approaches, have been shown to have improved outcomes but also require fluoroscopy and procedure time, posing an economic argument as well as a patient-outcome one.
objectiveBecause of the many strategies posited in the literature, it becomes essential to objectively evaluate evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses to help determine the optimal stenting strategy.
methodsWe reviewed the clinical evidence on the efficacy of coronary bifurcation stenting.
resultsIn this paper, we review the most recent randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses on the efficacy of various stenting techniques and advances in stenting technologies published to gauge the current state of understanding and chart where the field is heading.
conclusionBifurcation stenting is a maturing problem in the field of interventional cardiology that is adapting to the needs of the patients and advances in technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.