You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 1
  • Randomised comparison of provisional side branch stenting versus a two-stent strategy for treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch: the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study IV

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Interventional cardiology
Original research
Randomised comparison of provisional side branch stenting versus a two-stent strategy for treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch: the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study IV
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses [https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/rapid-responses/].
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses [https://www.bmj.com/company/journals-terms-and-conditions-for-rapid-responses/] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [https://www.bmj.com/company/your-privacy/].
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 17 May 2020
    Final kissing balloon inflation and proximal optimization technique should be performed in true bifurcation lesions with large side branch

    Dear editor,
    I have read with great interest the results of nordic baltic bifurcation study-4 by Kumsar et al (1), in which study clinical outcomes after treatment of lesions in large bifurcations by simple or complex stent implantation were compared. In the 6-month results of this study, compared to the provisional method, a decrease in major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was observed in the complex group, although it was not statistically significant. Again, in the comparison of the 2-year results, no difference was observed between the two groups. The fact that complex stenting is not found to be superior to simple stenting for true bifurcation lesions with such a wide side branch can be due to several reasons:
    1- All patients did not receive a final kissing balloon inflation (FKBI). It is well known that the FKBI should be performed in two-stenting techniques for full treatment of the true bifurcation lesion. In addition, why was the high rate of FKBI application required in simple stenting? It is well known that in simple stenting, POT should be used instead of FKBI unless the there is a TIMI flow <3, and / or a dissection in the side branch (2).
    2- Interestingly, no proximal optimization technique (POT) was used in any patient. In any complex two-stent technique without POT, the lesion is not considered to be truly treated (3,4). I think this is the most important limitation of the study. POT provides optimal positioning of the main vascular ste...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.