Why the study?
The project originated from the need to address the paucity of standardization and comparability between studies involving bifurcation coronary lesions.
Provides standardized definitions, endpoints, and follow-up methods for clinical trials involving coronary bifurcation lesions to improve comparability and pooled analyses.
Facilitates trial interpretation for bifurcation PCI; extends consensus definitions to strengthen future meta-analyses and practice recommendations.
The Bifurcation Academic Research Consortium (Bif-ARC) project originated from the need to overcome the paucity of standardization and comparability between studies involving bifurcation coronary lesions. This document is the result of a collaborative effort between academic research organizations and the most renowned interventional cardiology societies focused on bifurcation lesions in Europe, the United States, and Asia. This consensus provides standardized definitions for bifurcation lesions; the criteria to judge the side branch relevance; the procedural, mechanistic, and clinical endpoints for every type of bifurcation study; and the follow-up methods. Considering the complexity of bifurcation lesions and their evaluation, detailed instructions and technical aspects for site and core laboratory analysis of bifurcation lesions are also reported. The recommendations included within this consensus will facilitate pooled analyses and the effective comparison of data in the future, improving the clinical relevance of trials in bifurcation lesions, and the quality of care in this subset of patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lunardi et al. (2022) conducted a review in Coronary bifurcation lesions. Standardized definitions and endpoints was evaluated. The Bifurcation Academic Research Consortium consensus provides standardized definitions, endpoints, and trial design principles to improve the comparability and quality of future coronary bifurcation studies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: