ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2022
Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Bifurcation Lesions According to Medina Classification.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for bifurcation lesions: insights from the DECADE cooperation.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Isolated Medina 0,0,1 Ostial Side-Branch Lesions: Procedural Outcomes, Bailout Stenting, and 12-Month Clinical Follow-Up.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Safety Profile of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Isolated Side Branch Lesions: A Single-Center Experience.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2026Article
- Real-World Experience of Coronary Bifurcation Stenting in a Single Centre in Western India.Cureus · 2026Article
- From association to causation: Integrating stable, subgroup-aware SHAP explanations with causal inference for trustworthy AI in coronary bifurcation PCI.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2026Article
- Challenges and Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Drug-Coated Balloons for De Novo Non-aorto-ostial and Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Coronary Bifurcation PCI-Part I: Fundamentals.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Advancements in Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Techniques: Insights From Computational and Bench Testing Studies.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025Review
- Kissing Balloon-Stent Technique for Simple Bifurcation Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of Medina classification on clinical outcomes of imaging-guided coronary bifurcation stenting.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2023Article
- Pros and Cons of a Novel Coronary Stenting Technique for Medina 0.0.1 Lesions: Osdokina Crush.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Reply: Limitless suffixes for bifurcation classification with the Movahed coronary bifurcation lesion classification system.AsiaIntervention · 2023Article
- Three-Year Outcomes After Bifurcation Stenting With Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents: Final Results From the RESOLUTE ONYX Postapproval Study.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) are frequently encountered in clinical practice and are associated with worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. However, there are limited data around the prognostic impact of different CBL distributions. Methods and Results All CBL percutaneous coronary intervention procedures from the prospective e-Ultimaster (Prospective, Single-Arm, Multi Centre Observations Ultimaster Des Registry) multicenter international registry were analyzed according to CBL distribution as defined by the Medina classification. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the hazard ratio (HR) of the primary outcome, 1-year target lesion failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization), and its individual components between Medina subtypes using Medina 1.0.0 as the reference category. A total of 4003 CBL procedures were included. The most prevalent Medina subtypes were 1.1.1 (35.5%) and 1.1.0 (26.8%), whereas the least prevalent was 0.0.1 (3.5%). Overall, there were no significant differences in patient and procedural characteristics among Medina subtypes. Only Medina 1.1.1 and 0.0.1 subtypes were associated with increased target lesion failure (HR, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.3-5.5] and HR, 4.0 [95% CI, 1.6-9.0], respectively) at 1 year, compared with Medina 1.0.0, prompted by clinically driven target lesion revascularization (HR, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.1-8.6] and HR, 4.6 [95% CI, 1.3-16.0], respectively) as well as cardiac death in Medina 0.0.1 (HR, 4.7 [95% CI, 1.0-21.6]). No differences in secondary outcomes were observed between Medina subtypes. Conclusions In a large multicenter registry analysis of coronary bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, we demonstrate prognostic differences in 1-year outcomes between different CBL distributions, with Medina 1.1.1 and 0.0.1 subtypes associated with an increased risk of target lesion failure.
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.