Table 4. Characteristics and angiographic results of nonselective bifurcation lesion studies.

Author	Year	Design	Treatment	Simple size	Lesion type	LM bifurcation lesion	CBL Type (Medina)	True bifurcation (%)	NOS
					Restenosis/de novo
*Evaluated without the scale entries of selection of the nonexposed cohort and comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis. BVS: Bioabsorbale Vessel Scarfolding; CB: conventional balloon; DCA: directional coronary atherectomy; DCB: drug-coated balloon; DES: drug-eluting balloon; LM: left main; NOS: Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale; pDES: provisional DES.
Schulz, et al.[38]	2014	Retrospective, single-arm study	DCB	38	De novo	33.3	all type	28.4	6*
Harad, et al.[36]	2017	Retrospective, single-arm study	DCB	177	ISR	45.8	all type	52.5	5*
Kitani,et al.[41]	2021	Retrospective, multicenter, single-arm study	DCB	129	De novo	80.6	all type	14.0	6*
Okuts,et al.[35]	2022	Retrospective, single-arm study	DCB	24	De novo	59.3	all type except (0,0,1)	25.9	6*
Naganuma, et al.[37]	2016	Retrospective, multi-center, comparative study study	DCB	73	ISR	24.4	all type	67.9	8
			DES	85	ISR	23.6		57.3
Ikuta, et al.[40]	2021	Retrospective, single-arm study	DCB + DES	138	De novo	15.2	(1,1,1) (1,0,1) (0,1,1)	100.0	6*
Zhao, et al.[31]	2017	Retrospective, single-arm study	DCB + DES	20	De novo	15.0	(1,1,1) (1,0,1) (0,1,1)	100.0	5*
Elwany, et al.[39]	2019	Retrospective, multi-center, single-arm study	DCB + BVS	40	De novo	2.5	all type	72.5	6*
Li, et al.[43]	2021	Retrospective, comparative study	DCB + DES	102	De novo	58.8	(1,1,1) (1,0,1) (0,1,1)	100.0	8
			CB + DES	117	De novo	39.3		100.0
Herrador, et al.[45]	2013	Prospective, comparative study	DCB + DES	50	NA	8.0	all type	56.0	8
			CB + DES	50	NA	12.0		48.0
Yang, et al.[30]	2020	Retrospective, comparative study	DCB + DES	29	NA	3.4	(1,1,1) (1,0,1) (0,1,1)	100.0	8
			CB + DES	31	NA	3.2		100.0