Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40087854›Full record

ReviewInternational journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering2025

Advancements in Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Techniques: Insights From Computational and Bench Testing Studies.

Andrea Colombo, Claudio Chiastra, Diego Gallo, Poay Huan Loh, Socrates Dokos, Mingzi Zhang, Hamed Keramati, Dario Carbonaro, Francesco Migliavacca, Tapabrata Ray and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Mechanistic Insights Into How Rewiring and Bifurcation Angle Affect DK-Crush Stent Deployment.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

12 authors.

Andrea ColomboSydney Vascular Modelling Group, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6436-6785
Claudio ChiastraPolitoBIOMed Lab, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2070-6142
Diego GalloPolitoBIOMed Lab, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7409-7111
Poay Huan LohDepartment of Cardiology, National University Heart Centre, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Socrates DokosGraduate School of Biomedical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7399-2712
Mingzi ZhangSydney Vascular Modelling Group, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0118-1160
Hamed KeramatiSydney Vascular Modelling Group, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0156-9739
Dario CarbonaroPolitoBIOMed Lab, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Francesco MigliavaccaDepartment of Chemistry, Material and Chemical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4644-630X
Tapabrata RaySchool of Engineering and Technology, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1950-5917
Nigel JepsonPrince of Wales Clinical School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Susann BeierSydney Vascular Modelling Group, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9815-108X

Funding

National Heart Foundation of Australia 103079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronary bifurcation lesions present complex challenges in interventional cardiology, necessitating effective stenting techniques to achieve optimal results. This literature review comprehensively examines the application of computational and bench testing methods in coronary bifurcation stenting, offering insights into procedural aspects, stent design considerations, and patient-specific characteristics. Structural mechanics finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, and multi-objective optimization are valuable tools for evaluating stenting strategies, including provisional side branch stenting and two-stenting techniques. We highlight the impact of procedural factors, such as balloon positioning and rewiring techniques, and stent design features on the outcome of percutaneous coronary interventions with stents. We discuss the importance of patient-specific characteristics in deployment strategies, such as bifurcation angle and plaque properties. This understanding informs present and future research and clinical practice on bifurcation stenting. Computational simulations are a continuously maturing advance that has significantly enhanced stenting devices and techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions over the years. However, the accurate account of patient-specific vessel and lesion characteristics, both in terms of anatomical and accurate physiological behavior, and their large variation between patients, remains a significant challenge in the field. In this context, advancements in multi-objective optimization offer significant opportunities for refining stent design and procedural practices.

Indexed as

Coronary VesselsStentsComputer SimulationCoronary Artery DiseaseFinite Element AnalysisHumansModels, Cardiovascularbifurcationcomputational fluid dynamicsfinite element analysismulti‐objective optimizationpercutaneous coronary interventionstent

Identifiers

PMID40087854
PMCPMC11909422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.