ArticleAsiaIntervention2025
Predictors of failure in the reverse wire technique for complex coronary bifurcation lesions.
Article in AsiaIntervention, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The reverse wire technique (RWT), with a guidewire shaped in a swan-neck configuration, is used to address challenging side branch (SB) wiring in complex coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs). However, its success is not guaranteed. Aims: This study aimed to identify factors associated with RWT failure and to assess the feasibility of the balloon blocking technique (BBT) in the distal main vessel (MV) as an alternative. Methods: Thirty-two consecutive complex CBLs with difficult SB wiring were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups: those with successful RWT (RWT-S, n=17) and those who underwent BBT, either after RWT failure or as a primary approach (RWT-F/BBT, n=15). Risk factors for RWT failure were examined. Results: The success rate of SB wiring with BBT was 80%. RTW-F/BBT was associated with less involvement of the left anterior descending artery (40% vs 71%), smaller-diameter MV stent implantation (2.8±0.5 mm vs 3.2±0.5 mm), wider bifurcation angle (BA) between the distal MV and middle SB (BA-β: 51.6±29.8° vs 36.4±18.6°), and smaller minimum lumen diameter (MLD) in the distal MV (1.72±0.68 mm vs 2.14±0.58 mm). SB calcification (33% vs 0%; p=0.01), severe bending in the distal MV (53% vs 12%; p=0.02) and severe bending in the SB (73% vs 24%; p=0.01) were more common in the RTW-F/BBT group. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that a combination of preprocedural BA-β >34.1°, distal MV MLD <1.77 mm, and SB calcification had good discrimination ability for predicting RWT failure (area under the curve 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.71-0.98). Conclusions: RWT is challenging in complex CBLs with calcification, significant tortuosity, and small vessels. BBT offers a viable alternative in these cases.
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.