***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: BACKGROUND Rapamycin-eluting stents ( RES ) have been shown to reduce restenosis in many types of lesions . However , the ideal strategy for the treatment of coronary bifurcated lesions has not been established to date . This r and omized study compares 2 strategies for the RES treatment of bifurcation lesions : a simple approach ( stenting the main vessel and balloon dilatation for the side branch [ SB ] ) versus a complex approach ( stents for both vessels ) . METHODS To compare both strategies , a r and omized study was conducted in 91 patients with true coronary bifurcation lesions . All patients received an RES at the main vessel , covering the SB . Patients from group A ( n = 47 ) were assigned to balloon dilation of the involved SB ( simple strategy ) ; patients in group B ( n = 44 ) were r and omized to receive a second stent at the SB origin ( complex strategy ) . There were no differences between groups regarding baseline clinical and angiographic data . RESULTS Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 3 patients from group A ( 2 non-Q-wave myocardial infa rct ions and 1 target lesion revascularization ) . Six-month angiographic reevaluation was obtained in 80 patients ( 88 % ) . Restenosis of the main vessel was observed in 1 ( 2 % ) patient from group A and in 4 ( 10 % ) from group B. Restenosis of the SB appeared in 2 ( 5 % ) patients from group A and in 6 ( 15 % ) from group B. CONCLUSIONS Both strategies are effective in reducing the restenosis rate , with no differences in terms of clinical outcome . Elective SB stenting seems to provide no advantages over the simpler stent jail followed by SB balloon dilation OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention techniques using drug-eluting stents for bifurcation coronary lesions . BACKGROUND The optimal bifurcation stenting technique needs to be evaluated . METHODS The trial included 2 r and omization studies separated by the presence of side branch ( SB ) stenosis for patients having non-left main bifurcation lesions . For 306 patients without SB stenosis , the routine final kissing balloon or leave-alone approaches were compared . Another r and omization study compared the crush or single-stent approaches for 419 patients with SB stenosis . RESULTS Between the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups for nondiseased SB lesions , angiographic restenosis occurred in 17.9 % versus 9.3 % ( p=0.064 ) , comprising 15.1 % versus 3.7 % for the main branch ( p=0.004 ) and 2.8 % versus 5.6 % for the SB ( p=0.50 ) from 214 patients ( 69.9 % ) receiving 8-month angiographic follow-up . Incidence of major adverse cardiac events including death , myocardial infa rct ion , or target vessel revascularization over 1 year was 14.0 % versus 11.6 % between the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups ( p=0.57 ) . In another r and omization study for diseased SB lesions , 28.2 % in the single-stent group received SB stents . From 300 patients ( 71.6 % ) receiving angiographic follow-up , between the crush and single-stent groups , angiographic restenosis rate was 8.4 % versus 11.0 % ( p=0.44 ) , comprising 5.2 % versus 4.8 % for the main branch ( p=0.90 ) and 3.9 % versus 8.3 % for the SB ( p=0.12 ) . One-year major adverse cardiac events rate between the crush and single-stent groups was 17.9 % versus 18.5 % ( p=0.84 ) . CONCLUSIONS Angiographic and clinical outcomes were excellent after percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents with any stent technique for non-left main bifurcation lesions once the procedure was performed successfully We compared the myocardial ischemic burden of provisional and routine final kissing-balloon inflation ( FKI ) with the 1-stent strategy using a second-generation drug-eluting stent for coronary bifurcation lesions ( CBL ) . There are no established guidelines for side branch ( SB ) intervention after main vessel stenting . In total , 113 CBL patients were r and omized to receive different SB intervention strategies :  provisional-FKI group ( n = 57 ; FKI only when SB flow was TIMI <3 ) and routine-FKI group ( n = 56 ; m and atory FKI with aggressive treatment until SB-residual stenosis < 50 % ) . Dipyridamole-stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy with 99mTc was performed after 8 months . The regional summed-difference score ( r-SDS ) was calculated according to the coronary territory . The primary endpoint included target vessel ischemia ( TVI ; r-SDS ≥ 2 ) at 8 months , whereas the clinical primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events ( MACE ) at 3 years . The percent ( % ) myocardial ischemia ( 100 × SDS/68 ) was also calculated . At 8 months , TVI was identified in 11 and 4 % in the provisional-FKI and routine-FKI groups , respectively ( p = 0.226 ) . SB-binary restenosis ( 48 vs. 4 % , p < 0.001 ) and myocardial ischemia at the SB territory ( 11 vs. 0 % , p = 0.030 ) were more common in the provisional-FKI group ; however , in TVI patients , % myocardial ischemia ( 4.12 ± 1.23 % vs. 3.68 ± 1.04 % ; p = 0.677 ) did not significantly differ . Moderate/severe ischemia ( > 10 % myocardial ischemia ) was not observed in the target vessel in either group . Long-term cumulative MACE were similar between the groups ( 9 vs. 14 % ; p =  0.358 ) . Provisional-FKI according to TIMI-SB flow grade led to similar and acceptable myocardial ischemia , in comparison with routine-FKI , which may contribute to the identical long-term follow-up Final kissing-balloon inflation is often recommended for percutaneous coronary intervention ( PCI ) of bifurcation lesions . However , r and omized trials focusing on kissing inflation have not confirmed its beneficial impact . We compared outcomes of kissing inflation for PCI of bifurcation lesions , explicitly stratifying results according to stenting strategy . Patients undergoing bifurcation PCI were retrospectively enrolled . Subjects receiving final kissing inflation were compared with those not undergoing kissing inflation , after stratification for a single-stent technique . The primary end point was the long-term rate of major adverse cardiac events ( MACE , i.e. , death , myocardial infa rct ion , or target lesion revascularization ( TLR ) ) . A total of 4314 patients were included : 1176 ( 27.3 % ) treated with a single stent and kissing inflation , 1637 ( 37.9 % ) with a single stent but no kissing , 1072 ( 24.8 % ) with two stents and kissing , and 429 ( 9.9 % ) with two stents but no kissing . At unadjusted analyses kissing was associated with fewer short-term MACE and deaths in the two-stent group , and with fewer long-term MACE , cardiac deaths , and side-branch TLR in the two-stent group ( all P < 0.05 ) . Conversely , kissing appeared detrimental after single stenting . However , after multivariable analyses , kissing no longer significantly affected the risk of adverse events , with the exception of the risk of side-branch TLR , which was lower in those receiving two stents and final kissing inflation ( hazard ratio = 0.52 , 95 % confidence interval 0.30–0.90 , P = 0.020 ) . Kissing inflation can be avoided in bifurcation lesions uneventfully treated with single-stent PCI . However , final kissing-balloon inflation appears beneficial in reducing the risk of side-branch repeat revascularization after using a two-stent strategy Background — It is unknown whether the preferred 1-stent bifurcation stenting approach with stenting of the main vessel ( MV ) and optional side branch stenting using drug-eluting stents should be finalized by a kissing balloon dilatation ( FKBD ) . Therefore , we compared strategies of MV stenting with and without FKBD . Methods and Results — We r and omized 477 patients with a bifurcation lesion to FKBD ( n=238 ) or no FKBD ( n=239 ) after MV stenting .  The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events : cardiac death , non – procedure-related index lesion myocardial infa rct ion , target lesion revascularization , or stent thrombosis within 6 months . The 6-month major adverse cardiac event rates were 2.1 % and 2.5 % ( P=1.00 ) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups , respectively . Procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and more contrast media was needed in the FKBD group than in the no-FKBD group . Three hundred twenty-six patients had a quantitative coronary assessment . At 8 months , the rate of binary (re)stenosis in the entire bifurcation lesion ( MV and side branch ) was 11.0 % versus 17.3 % ( P=0.11 ) , in the MV was 3.1 % versus 2.5 % ( P=0.68 ) , and in the side branch was 7.9 % versus 15.4 % ( P=0.039 ) in the FKBD versus no-FKBD groups , respectively . In patients with true bifurcation lesions , the side branch restenosis rate was 7.6 % versus 20.0 % ( P=0.024 ) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups , respectively . Conclusions — MV stenting strategies with and without FKBD were associated with similar clinical outcomes .  FKBD reduced angiographic side branch (re)stenosis , especially in patients with true bifurcation lesions . The simple no-FKBD procedures result ed in reduced use of contrast media and shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times . Long-term data on stent thrombosis are needed . Clinical Trial Registration — URL : http:// clinical trials.gov . Unique identifier : NCT00914199 Background —Treatment of bifurcations is a complex problem . The clinical value of treating side branches is an unsolved problem in the field of interventional cardiology . Methods and Results —We initiated a prospect i ve r and omized controlled trial . One hundred and ten patients with bifurcations were r and omly assigned to 2 arms : Stenting of the main branch ( MB , Taxus-stent , paclitaxel-eluting stents ) and m and atory side branch ( SB ) percutaneous coronary intervention ( PCI ; kissing balloons ) with provisional SB stenting ( therapy A ) , or stenting of the MB ( paclitaxel-eluting stents ) with provisional SB-PCI only when the SB had a thrombolysis in myocardial infa rct ion flow < 2 ( therapy B ) . The primary end point was target lesion revascularization .  The mean ages were 66.8 years ( A ) versus 65.1 years ( B , P=0.4 ) , 71.4 % ( A ) versus 77.8 % were men ( P=0.4 ) , patients with diabetes were present in 25.0 % versus 25.9 % ( P=0.9 ) . The MB was left anterior descending artery in 80.4 % versus 81.5 % ( A versus B , P=0.9 ) . The SB-PCI and kissing balloon-PCI were performed according to the study protocol in 82.1%/73.2 % versus 16.7%/13.0 % ( P<0.05 for both ) , while changing of the intended therapy was necessary in 17.9 % versus 16.7 % ( A versus B , P=0.9 ) . A final thrombolysis in myocardial infa rct ion flow 3 ( MB ) was reached in all patients ( groups A and B ) , final thrombolysis in myocardial infa rct ion flow 3 ( SB ) was observed in 96.4 % versus 88.9 % ( A versus B , P=0.3 ) . Radiation time ( min ) and contrast medium ( mL ) were 14.2/210 ( group A ) versus 7.8/151.6 ( group B ; P for both < 0.05 ) . Six month – follow up : major adverse cardiac events was 23.2 % ( A ) versus 24.1 % ( B , P=0.9 ) , target lesion revascularization was 17.9 % ( A ) versus 14.8 % ( B , P=0.7 ) , and late lumen loss ( MB ) was 0.2 mm ( A ) versus 0.3 mm ( B , P=0.5 ) . In group B , no PCI of the SB was done during follow up . Conclusion —A simple strategy using paclitaxel-eluting stents with only provisional 
    Output:
    
Compared with the No-KBI strategy , the KBI strategy reduced the incidence of side branch restenosis and increased the risk of main branch restenosis in the one-stent approach .
However , the clinical outcomes were similar between the KBI and No-KBI groups