Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi ,  father of my country , India , made these observations in year 1925  about the  fundamental constituents of  violence in society . These words of monumental wisdom came when he was  addressing young Indians in a country- side rally .

mahatma gandhi quotes medical science humanity

Note, his finger points to , what  exactly is relevant to our profession ! He emphasized this  nearly  100 years ago, when medical science was at its infancy .One can only guess what would be Mahatma’s comment about our profession in it’s  current form !

Should we include moral, behavioral and ethical classes  right from the first year of medical  school along with Anatomy , physiology and bio chemistry.Medical council of India obviously need to burn more mid night oil , I wish it happens in my life time. !

Here is a  video recipe  !

Please click here to  see more videos from my you tube site

Prosthetic valve implantation has revolutionized the management of  valvular heart disease . The original concept valve  was a ball in a cage valve  , still considered as a  fascinating discovery.  It was conceived by the young Dr Starr and made by Engineer Edwards  .This was followed   by long hours of arguments,  debates and  experiments that ran into many months . The  silent corridors of  Oregon hospital Portland USA remain the only witness  to their hard work and motivation.  At last,  it happened , the first human valve was implanted in the year 1960. Since then . . . for nearly  50 years these valves  have done a seminal  job for the mankind.

With the advent of  disc valve and bi-leaflet valve in the  later decades of 20th century , we had to say a reluctant good-bye to this valve.

There is a  lingering question among many of the current generation cardiologists and surgeons why this valve became extinct ?

Starr and Edwards with their child !

We in India , are witnessing these old warrior inside the heart functioning for more than 30 years.From my institute of Madras medical college  which probably has inserted more Starr Edwards valve than any other  during the 1970s and 80s by Prof . Sadasivan , Solomon victor , and Vasudevan and others .

It is still a mystery why this valve lost its popularity and ultimately died a premature death.The modern hemodynamic  men  working from a theoretical labs thought  this valve was  hemodynamically  inferior. These Inferior valves worked  like a  power horse  inside the hearts  the poor Indian laborers  for over 30 years.

A Starr Edwards valve rocking inside the heart in mitral position

The cage which gives  a radial support* mimic  sub valvular apparatus, which none of the other valves can provide.

* Mitral  apparatus has 5 major  components. Annulus, leaflets, chordae, pap muscle, LV free wall.None of the artificial valves has all these components.  Though , we would love to have all of them technically it is simply not possible.  The metal cage of Starr Edwards  valve partially satisfies this  , as  it acts as a virtual sub valvular apparatus.Even though the cage has no contact with LV free wall, the mechano hydrolic  transduction of  LV forces to the annulus  is possible .

Further , the good hemodyanmics of this valve indicate , the cage ensures co axial blood  flow  across the mitral inflow throughout diastole. .Unlike the bi-leaflet valve ,  where the direction of  blood flow is determined by the quantum of leaflet excursion  in every beat . In bileaflet valves  each leaflet has independent determinants of valve  motion . In Starr Edwards valve the ball is the leaflet . In contrast to bi-leaflet valve , the contact area  of the  ball and the blood in Starr Edwards  is a smooth affair  and  ball makes sure  the LV forces are equally transmitted to it’s surface .

The superiority of bi-leaflet valves and disc valves  (Over ball and cage ) were  never proven convincingly in a randomized fashion . The other factor which pulled down this valve’s popularity was the supposedly high profile nature of this valve. LVOT tend to get narrowed in few undersized hearts.  This  can not be an  excuse , as no consistent  efforts were made to miniaturize this valve which is  distinctly possible.

Sudden deaths from  Starr Edwards valve  .

  • Almost unheard in our population.
  • The major reason  for the long durability of this valve is due to the  lack of  any metallic moving points .
  • Absence of hinge  in this  valve  confers  a huge mechanical  advantage with  no stress points.
  • A globe / or a ball  has  the universal hemodynamic advantage. This shape makes it difficult for thrombotic focus to stick and grow.

Final message

Science is considered as sacred as our religion Patients believe in us. We believe in science. A  good  durable valve  was  dumped from this world  for no good reason. If commerce is the  the main issue ( as many still believe it to be ! )  history will never  forgive those people who were  behind the murder of this innocent device.

Cardiologists and Cardio thoracic surgeons are equally culpable  for the pre- mature exit of this valve from human domain.  Why didn’t they protest ?  We  can get some solace  ,  if  only we can impress upon  the current valve manufacturers  to  give a fresh lease of life to this valve .


It is often said life is a cycle , time machine rolls without rest and reach  the same  point  again and again . This is  applicable for the  knowledge cycle as well .

We  live a life ,  which is infact a  “fraction of a time”(<100years) when we consider the evolution of life in our planet for over 4 million years.

Man has survived and succumbed to various natural and  self inflicted diseases &  disasters. Currently,  in this  brief phase of life  , CAD is the major epidemic , that confronts  modern  man.It determines the ultimate  life expectancy . The fact that ,  CAD is a new age  disease   and  it was  not  this rampant ,   in our ancestors  is well known .The disease has evolved with man’s pursuit for knowledge and wealth.

A simple example of how the management of CAD over 50 years will  help assess the importance of  “Time in medical therapeutics”

  • 1960s: Life style modification and Medical therapy  is  the standard of care in all stable chronic  CAD The fact is medical and lifestyle management remained the only choice in this period as   other options were not available. (Absence of choice was  a blessing as we subsequently realised  ! read further )
  • The medical  world started looking for options to manage CAD.
  • 1970s : CABG was  a major innovation for limiting angina .
  • 1980s: Plain balloon angioplasty a revolution in the management of CAD.
  • 1990s: Stent scaffolding of    the coronaries  was  a great add on .Stent  was too  dangerous  for routine use  was to be used only in bail out situations
  • Mid 1990s : Stents  reduced restenosis. Stents are  the greatest revolution for CAD management.Avoiding stent in a PCI  is unethical , stents  should be liberally used. Every PCI should be followed by stent.
  • Stents have potential complication so a good luminal dilatation with stent like result (SLR)  was  preferred so that we can avoid stent related complications.
  • 2000s: Simple  bare metal stents are not enough .It also has significant restenosis.
  • 2002: BMS are too notorius for restenosis and may be dangerous to use
  • 2004 : Drug eluting stents are god’s gift to mankind.It eliminates restenosis by 100% .
  • 2006:  Drug eluting stents not only eliminates restenosis it eliminates many patients suddenly by subacute stent thrombosis
  • 2007 : The drug is not  the culprit in DES it is the non bio erodable polymer that causes stent thrombosis. Polymer free DES  or   biodegradable stent , for temporary scaffolding  of the coronary artery  (Poly lactic acid )  are likely to  be the standard of care .
  • All stents  are  potentially dangerous for the simple reason any metal within the coronary artery  has a potential for acute occlusion.In chronic CAD it is not at all necessary to open the occluded coronary arteries , unless  CAD is severely symptomatic in spite of best  medical therapy.
  • 2007: Medical management is superior to PCI  in most of the situations in chronic CAD  .(COURAGE study ) .Avoid PCI whenever possible.
  • 2009 :The fundamental principle of CAD management  remain unaltered. Life style modification,  regular  exercise ,  risk factor reduction, optimal doses of anti anginal drug, statins and aspirin  is the time tested recipe for effective management of CAD .

So the CAD  therapeutic  journey  found  it’s  true  destination  ,  where it started in 1960s.

Final message

Every new option of therapy must be tested  against every past option .There are other reverse cycles  in cardiology  that includes the  role of diuretics  in SHT , beta blockers in CHF etc. It is ironical , we are in the era  of rediscovering common sense with sophisticated research methodology .What our ancestors know centuries ago , is perceived to be great scientific breakthroughs . It takes  a  pan continental , triple  blinded  randomised trial   to prove physical activity is good  for the heart .(INTERHEART , MONICA  studies etc) .

Medical profession is bound to experience hard times in the decades to come ,  unless we  look back in time and “constantly scrutinize”  the so called  scientific breakthroughs and  look  for genuine treasures for a great future !

Common sense protects more humans than modern science and  it comes free of cost  too . . .

NSTEMI  constitutes a  very heterogeneous population .The cardiac   risk   can vary  between very low to very high .  In contrast ,  STEMI patients  carry  a high risk for  electro mechanical complication including   sudden death .They all need immediate treatment  either with  thrombolysis or PCI to open up the blood vessel  and salvage the myocardium.

The above concept , may  be true in   many situations  ,  but what we fail to recognize   is  that ,   STEMI   also  is  a heterogeneous clinico pathological  with varying risks and outcome !

Let us see briefly ,  why this  is very important  in the management of STEMI

Management of STEMI  has undergone great  change  over the past 50 years and  it is the standing example of evidence based coronary care in the modern era ! The mortality  ,  in the early era was around 30-40% . The advent of coronary care units, defibrillators, reduced the mortality to around 10-15%  in 1960 /70s . Early use of heparin , aspirin   further improved the outcome .The inhospital mortality  was greatly  reduced to a level of  7-8% in the thrombolytic  era. And ,  then  came the interventional approach, namely primary PCI ,  which is now considered the best form of reperfusion when done early by an experienced team.

Inspite of this wealth of evidence   for the   superiority  of PCI  , it is only a fraction of  STEMI patients get  primary PCI   even in some  of the  well equipped centers ( Could be as low as  15 %)

Why ? this paradox

Primary PCI   has   struggled  to establish itself  as a global  therapeutic concept  for STEMI ,   even after   20 years of it’s introduction (PAMI trial)  .  If we  attribute ,  lack of   infrastructure  , expertise are  responsible for this low utility of primary PCI , we are mistaken ! There are so many institutions , at least in developing world ,   reluctant to do primary PCI  for varied reasons.( Affordability , support system , odd hours ,and finally perceived fear of untoward complication !)

Primary PCI may be a great treatment modality , but it comes with a inherent risk related to the procedure.

In fact the early hazard could exceed the potential benefit in many of the low risk STEMI  patients !

All STEMI’s are not  same , so all does not require same treatment !

Common sense and logic would   tell us any medical condition should be risk stratified before applying the management protocol. This will enable  us to avoid applying “high risk  – high benefit”  treatments in low risk patients . It is a great surprise,  the cardiology community has extensively researched to risk stratify NSTEMI/UA   ,  it has  rarely  considered risk stratification of STEMI before  starting the treatment.

In this context , it should  be emphasized  most of the clinical trails on   primary PCI  do not address  the clinical  relevance and the  differential outcomes   in various  subsets of  STEMI .

Consider the following two cases.

Two young men with STEMI  , both present within  3  hours   after  onset of symptoms

  1. ST elevation in V1 -V6 , 1 , AVL   ,  Low blood pressure , with severe  chest pain.
  2. ST elevation in 2 ,3, AVF , hemodynamically stable , with minimal  or no  discomfort .

In the above example,   a  small inferior  MI by a distal RCA occlusion  ,  and a proximal LAD lesion jeopardising entire anterior wall , both  are  categorized as STEMI !

Do you want to advocate same treatment  for both ?  or Will you  risk stratify the STEMI and treat individually ?  (As we do in NSTEMI !)

Current guidelines , would  suggest PCI for both situations. But , logistic ,  and real world experience would clearly favor thrombolysis for the second patient .

Does that mean,  the second patient is getting an inferior modality of treatment ?

Not at all . In fact there is a strong case for PCI being inferior in these patients as the risk of the procedure may far outweigh the benefit especially if it is done on a  random basis  by  not so well experienced cath lab team.

(Note : Streptokinase  or TPA does not  vary it’s action ,  whether given by  an ambulance drive or a staff nurse or even a  cardiologist !  .In contrast ,  the infrastructure and expertise have the  greatest impact on the success and failure  of PCI )

Final message

So , it is argued the world cardiology societies(ACC/ESC etc)  need to risk stratify STEMI (Like we do in NSTEMI ) into low risk, intermediate risk and high risk categories and advice primary PCI only for high risk patients.

BMS, the original stent technology with meticulous metallurgy and design has been silently replaced by the drug eluting stent (DES) for over a decade. DES was introduced to bail out BMS from perceived high rates of  restenosis . It was a fundamental flaw, we failed to give due  weightage to the multiple variables like  operator expertise, lesion morphology, patient factors that determined the restenosis  rate .

There was never a single study done in large scale that compared a well deployed BMS with a poorly deployed BMS/ DES in terms of restenosis rate.This would have clearly quantified the technical component in the  restenosis rate that brought  pseduo -bad name for BMS in early days.

Without applying mind, wrong questions were asked and tested. No body could refute a “novel concept” , when some big names in industry  suggested  we must involve an anti cancer drug to prevent cell growth and neo-vascularisation  and hence restenosis. But , in reality  the technology of DES essentially complicated the metal behavior by adding a drug and drug adhesive agent(Polymer)  to the otherwise inert metal. Further , the , metallurgy  engineers had to restart / reduplicate from the scratch since we had  already well developed stent technology for BMS . The manipulation was  to add a drug to the metal.

The  irony of DES lies in the fact it Intentionally allowed to interfere /damage the endothelial healing and make the extended anti-platelet mandatory.  Still , DES was able to rule the world backed up by hyped data  with   bloated  reduction in restenosis rate. (Now we realise  the true benefits of DES  are nil  or at best marginal or even harmful in certain subsets of ACS .Read NORSTENT Trial linked below  )

Yes DES has a concern , but its not the drug you know !, 

Off late , since the polymer was  assumed as  culprit, variety of new generation stents with disposable /Non durable /Zero poylmer were developed. Still, polymer could not be proven as true culprit , some have started blaming  the drug again. Recently, It led to one famed DES based on Paclitaxel (which has a pride of place in the Land mark SYNTAX  study ) exited the human domain  with disgrace . (I wonder can  we conclude then SYNTAX study is also become invalid !)

This study done with over 9000 patients  concluded  like this  . . .

The DES industry was (is) so powerful it could easily shrug  the challenge of truth that came out briefly  in early 2000s when DES got hit with increased  acute complications.

Now, in 2016 NORSTENT study again showed us BMS is as good as DES in all walks of CAD.  Let us see what happens , still  its very unlikely mature cardiologists do not trust BMS.

*I have a belief  (Paranoid or not time will tell !) one of the reasons  DES are strongly promoted  is to sustain DAPT market alive and kicking for a long haul !

Scenerio  in India is frightening.

While the developed countries have DES usage rate around 65 % , India leads the world with DES constituting 95% (NIC registry 2017) of all deployed stents.What a way for a poor country  to  tackle CAD , which doesn’t even have prompt prehospital Aspirin for  bulk of their ACS patients, ready to waste  its resources in DES.

India , a country Infested with an unregulated health industry  became the perfect battle  ground for abusing the stents. With direct collusion with the large hospital managements the issue got exploded recently  .The Govt was compelled to come out with urgent restrictions and price control  in the use of stents.

Funny world this. World’s richest economies  are worried about the cost and want to phase out inappropriate therapy whenever possible, its absolute arrogance most of us feel shamed to keep BMS in their cathlab.

Final message

A  good metal based flexible ,trackable , thin struted  BMS should be the default choice for coronary stenting .( We used have one , now it vanished !)It avoids unnecessary prolonged DAPT .Most importantly one BMS costs 25 % of the cost of DES   . . . think of 4 critical proximal LAD lesions of a poor man can be fixed at the cost of one DES , that’s  definite way forward. Govt of India can pass another regulation in this regard. If you think  NORSTENT is NONSENSE  let us atleaset  insist for a large scale Indian  study for BMS /DES and  Cardiological society of India has much work to do !

Future for BMS  . . . looks bright !

While the  superiority  of DES is being increasingly questioned , the concept of surface modified BMS is being tested .This I believe is a face saving way to bring back the BMS in lieu of DES. There is a distinct  possibility of many of the new generation  DES going the BVS way in the near future.


1.Hassan AK1, Bergheanu SC, Stijnen T, van der Hoeven .J Late stent malapposition risk is higher after drug-eluting stent compared with bare-metal stent implantation and associates with late stent thrombosis.Eur Heart 2010 May;31(10):1172-80. 

2.Zhang K1, Liu T, Li JA, Chen JY, Wang J,   Surface modification of implanted cardiovascular metal stents: from antithrombosis and antirestenosis to endothelialization.J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014 Feb;102(2):588-609.

3. https://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/114th_issue/volume-12/number-17/350/ultra-hydrophilic-stent-platforms-promote-early-vascular-healing-and-minimise-late-tissue-response-a-potential-alternative-to-second-generation-drug-eluting-stents.

4.Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Coronary Artery Disease NORSTENT Investigators N Engl J Med 2016; 375:1242-1252

Post-ample : Only For non believers  ( who think this article is near rubbish ) 

I am  very much  convinced DES should be superior  for the simple reason it elutes a drug and the whole world believes it works !

Do you know, what these drugs do, and what they are expected to do ! In this elegant study  by Hassan AKEur Heart J. 2010 May;31(10):1172-80.  Its proven with IVUS , DES is many fold likely to cause late stent apposition than BMS.( Thus carrying the risk long term )  Reason is simple , patchy and incomplete endothelisation on the luminal side and pathological metal vessel wall interface  in abluminal promoting late mal-apposition.

True patients* present with symptoms , please , don’t ever think all your patients  bring their coronary artery for general servicing !

Ofcourse , we are the service provider to our patients . Though  heart is a mechanical pump it can never be considered equivalent to automobile engine .

For a Heart service station equipped with 24/7 lab,  the benefits may be  more if you treat the angiogram rather than the  patient.

Let us not misunderstand the word service , please show restraint, your patients will thank you forever.

* Silent significant CAD are indeed a problem in minority that requires selective wisdom.However, we can’t be aggressive hunters for CAD in population, as there is huge cost for human hunting !


Recent article which debates the issue of PCI in CTO

Coronary artery lumen has unique character . Its well-known  LAD diameter is not constant , it tapers in its distal course.(Unlike RCA which is more tubular ) It is estimated LAD looses 15 % of its diameter for every 30mm length.Fortunately LCX has no such long course to make tapering a visible threat. (Though it may still be an Issue !)

Is there a hemodyanmic purpose for this tapering in LAD ?

Should be, God never designs anatomy without a physiological purpose.We have to find it  out.(Can it be meant for  flow acceleration as the flow is entriely diastolic in LAD while in RCA its both in systole and diastole ?_

What is the relationship between tapering angle and final distal diameter?

Schematic of an artery with a tapered angle of 0:16 .Ref XIANG SHEN Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology Vol. 16, No. 8 (2016)

So, if you have a long lesion in proximal LAD and planning to stent with a 40 mm or long  stent the distal end is hyperinflated by atleast 1.5mm, if we use a non tapered stent. Though , gain of extra  diameter  in distal segments might appear attractive, this may not work to our advantage , since it defies and distorts  the natural hemodynamic flow pattern. Further , when you have tapering vessel, proximal optimisation becomes more important.

How about a tapering coronary stent ?

It should be a welcome addition to our already overflowing coronary hardware in fixing long lesions . Its still a surprise why only very few are making this type of stent.

Meril has developed a  tapered stent up to 60 mm long  (Biomime morph).It should be useful in specific lesions sub types.Its worthwhile to note  tapering stents are used more often in carotid artery .

Advantages of long tapering stent over two stents of different sizes.

  • It avoid the vulnerable overlapping zone with double metallic load.
  • Possibly cause less restenosis
  • Low risk for stent fracture
  • It reduces procedure time and of course the cost of stent by 50 %

Why the concept of Tapered stent is not that popular ?

I can only guess, probably lack of free availability and  to a certian extent ignorance as well !  However ,current status about tapering stents is expected to evolve, though many cardiologist still  feel it’s not clinicaly important issue to use a tubular stent in tapering vessel.

Alternative  interventions in tapered vessel.

  • Wall stent and other self expendable stents
  • Tapered balloon Angioplasty (Laird Am Journal of card 1996)

Experts  in this modality are  welcome to share their experience.


1.Zubaid MC, Buller C, Mancini GB. “Normal angiographic tapering of the coronary arteries”. Can J Cardiol 2002; 18: 973-980

2.Timmins LH, Meyer CA, Moreno MR, Moore JE Jr. “Mechanical modeling of stents deployed in tapered arteries”. Ann Biomed Eng 2008; 36: 2042-2050

3.Javier SP, Mintz GS, Popma JJ, Pichard AD, Kent KM, Satler LF, Leon MB. “Intravascular ultrasound assessment of the magnitude and mechanism of coronary artery and lumen tapering”. Am J Cardiol 1995; 75: 177-180

4.Laird JR, Popma JJ, Knopf WD, Yakubov S, Satler L, White H, Bergelson B, Hennecken J, Lewis S, Parks JM, Holmes DR. “Angiographic and procedural outcome after coronary angioplasty in high-risk subsets using a decremental diameter (tapered) balloon catheter. Tapered Balloon Registry Investigators”. Am J Cardiol 1996; 77: 561-568


Improper or technically deficient stent deployment is a major factor for post stent events .Few terminologies are used in assessing stent deployment.

Under expanded stent (UES) 

A stent is not fully  expanded to the desired or to its specified diameter.

This is often due to inadequate balloon pressure during inflation .

Many times its technical and It requires post dilatation.

Under-deployed stent is  often  due to a struts hitting a  hard surface or calcium .

What is mal-apposed stent  ? (MPS)

It’s a fine gap between the vessel wall and the stent.

It can be observed immediate or late. Immediate is usually due undersizing of stent.

Intermediate or late malapposition  can be due to many  reasons

  1. Due to dissolution of thrombus in the  vessel stent interface
  2. Positive vessel remodelling creating new gap between vessel wall  and stent remodeling
  3. Vessel wall regaining vasomotion and  ? ( Is it the culprit with bio vascular scaffold)
  4. Stent rejection hypersensitivity and inflammatory reaction is a rare possibility.

What is the acceptable mal-apposition ?

No stent deployment is perfect . Mal-apposition can be focal confined to one or two struts or can be diffuse . (Branch vessel are naturally malapposed)Doing a routine OCT /IVUS is inviting trouble as no cardiologist can sleep in  comfort even after a reasonably good procedure.So we have created a safe  dead space with a width of 200 micron as an acceptable mal-apposition  (As if , the 7 micron RBCs and 2 micron  platelets can’t  get trapped in this dead space)

Is routine post-dilatation the  answer for all  mal-appostion?

Not really , still It is most logical step. Liberal post-dilatation  can be a problem as it may increase plaque prolapse and may re-release or dislodge  the  thrombus trapped during the initial expansion and triggering a no- reflow.

Undersizing vs underexpanded stent

Selecting a smaller stent for a given vessel diameter is another common error that result in MPS. This again can be tackled(Though not ideal)  by high pressure inflations.



Is self expanding stent best option for preventing mal-apposition ?

May be.It has more radial strength, and it is expected to take care of the current and possible  future gaps of created by positive remodeling.

Other stent related issues 

  • Plaque prolapse
  • Stent edge dissection
  • Longitudinal miss
  • Stent fatigue and fracture

Final message 

UES and MPS , though discussed separately by cardiologists , from the patient point of view , the difference is  camouflaged in technical semantics since both carry risk significant risk of recurrent ACS or restenosis .It has become fashionable to believe one needs to  be worried more about visible UES than invisible MPS.


Bifurcation  angioplasty is a  newly conquered(Or not yet !)  target  for Interventional cardiologists.We have come a long way  in planning  interventions  for left main  with state of the art  hardware, expertise and  image assistance .However , every  classification , approach, strategy  for BFL talks about tackling the main and  side branches meticulously.

Still . . . one question  is not answered clearly is  . . .

A mini MCQ.

Answer: Open for contribution.

My inference

*It all depends upon the Indication and Individual arterial ischemic burden. In ACS, if  LAD territory is infarcted and beyond 24 hours.LAD becomes a  side kick to the vital LCX which supplies  the remaining life sustaining myocardium which includes the critical basal segments.

Final message 

Since , the risks involved in the interventions of  left main and its bifurcation is inherently linked  with , what exactly we mean (and do ! ) to the side branch .Its mandatory we spare few intellectual moments before our hands invade the coronary battle zone.

Here is an Interaction between  a ER physician  and a cardiologist !


“I should say I am happy for this cartoon cardiologist , It at least thinks , verifies ECG . . . and resists entry for a dubious STEMI to cath lab ”


It has become fashionable for many current generation cardiologists to stent the LAD   with proximal end  liberally extending into left main shaft  in Medina 0, 1, 0 or (1,1,1 )lesions involving distal left main often  jailing the LCX . This concept came into vogue as it helped bail  out few  hemo-dynamically  unstable patients with true left main bifurcation lesions during primary PCI .Of course , it’s potentially useful strategy in  emergency , if  extended into routine situations (like all stable proximal LAD/Bifurcation ) we are bound to create few problems.


Rapidly protecting the left main with a long single stent down into LAD is an easy way out for tackling distal left main /LAD combined lesions.  Conceptually it asks you to forget the LCX outright.(Coronary outrage for some to call LCX as  a side branch of left main ! ).Of course, one can reconstruct the LCX  ostium by other means or a second stent if required.

Final message

Conquering  left main disease  with a long stent right from its origin or mid shaft to  LAD (Some times  from Aortic ostium ! ) may be an  interventional pride for the cardiologist. But , in no way it  imply we have crossed the  final frontier in LM disease.In fact,  putting a left main coil is the  easiest task among all  PCI since there is little expertise required to cross the lesion .Maintaining its patency   medium  long run and thus beating the CABG  is  true achievement  ! Achieving  an acute patency  of left main and wheeling out the patient live from cath lab can not  be reason for permanent rejoice ! One should realise his life is at the mercy of DAPT and its pharmakinetics which we know can be unpredictable !

“Protecting the patient is more important than a protecting left main” 

Just because a technique is easy to accomplish it doesn’t confer the right to misuse it .The argument “my patient” is doing fine with this type of stenting  is not an appropriate way of justification.