<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rizzo, Toni</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kumsars, Indulis</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Similar Outcomes with Two-Stent and Provisional Stenting Techniques in Large Side Branch Bifurcation Lesions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MD Conference Express</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013-12-01 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19-20</style></pages><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bifurcation lesions occur at the point where one coronary artery branches from another. Currently, provisional side-branch stenting is the preferred strategy for treating most bifurcation lesions. This type of stenting involves stenting the main branch, reserving further stent placement in the side branch only if it is compromised. However, it is not known if provisional stenting provides the best outcomes in bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch. The aim of the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study IV [NCT01496638] was to compare provisional stenting with a two-stent techniques for the treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch.</style></abstract><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13</style></volume></record></records></xml>