ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Postdilation Strategies Following Provisional Stenting of Left Main Coronary Bifurcations: Insights From Patient-Specific Computational Simulations.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. 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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProvisional stenting is the preferred percutaneous coronary intervention strategy for noncomplex left main (LM) bifurcations; yet, the optimal postdilation strategy remains debated.
objectivesThe objective of the study was to quantitatively compare postdilation techniques following LM provisional stenting using validated computational simulations.
methodsFour patient-specific LM bifurcations were reconstructed in three dimensions and virtually stented. Seven postdilation techniques were evaluated: 1) standard proximal optimization technique (POT; P); 2) POT and simultaneous kissing balloon inflation (KBI); 3) POT and simultaneous KBI and re-POT; 4) POT and sequential KBI; 5) POT plus sequential and simultaneous KBI; 6) POT plus sequential and simultaneous KBI with re-POT; and 7) POT plus left circumflex dilation and re-POT (P-S-P). Techniques were compared based on lumen/stent morphology and hemodynamics.
resultsP ranked lowest overall, resulting in 27% smaller ostial area, 59% greater stent jailing, and 76% larger area exposed to high wall shear stress gradient at the left circumflex ostium compared with other techniques. P-S-P ranked second lowest, yielding 14% smaller ostial area and 29% greater area exposed to high relative residence time at the left anterior descending artery ostium. Techniques incorporating KBI showed the most favorable performance, with combined sequential and simultaneous KBI performing best, particularly in calcified or fibrous plaques. Final POT after KBI did not confer incremental benefit.
conclusionsKBI is superior to P or P-S-P. Combined high-pressure sequential and nominal-pressure simultaneous KBI outperforms sequential or simultaneous KBI alone, particularly in stiff calcified or fibrous lesions. Final POT after KBI provides no incremental advantage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.