ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION The mark of mediocrity in written material, whether it is literature, politics, or medicine, is to rely heavily on precedents; so whatever is previously written about a certain topic gets written again, propagating the same narratives over and over. Of course, this statement may initially seem irrelevant to our topic, and to medical writing in general, because we are in the era of “evidence-based medicine” and written medical literature need to be supported by “evidence” and not merely reflect opinions and anecdotal experience. In reality, however, what is occasionally presented as “evidence” does not qualify as an undisputable guide for clinical or technical decision making. There is no topic in interventional Cardiovascular Medicine where this “disconnect” is more relevant than that of interventional treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions.