The shortcomings of the Medina compared to the Movahed coronary bifurcation classification.

Abstract

The Medina classification separates true bifurcation lesions into three unnecessary groups: 1.1.1, 1.0.1, and 0.1.1. Non-true bifurcation lesions are divided into three unnecessary subgroups called 0.0.1, 0.1.0, and 1.0.0. Furthermore, the Medina classification does not describe any other important features of a given bifurcation lesion, making it useless when comparing complex bifurcation lesions. This has led to confusion in clinical settings and stagnation of bifurcation research. The Movahed bifurcation classification has overcome those problems by summarizing all true bifurcation lesions into one simple relevant category called B2 (B for bifurcation, 2 meaning both main and side branches at bifurcation site have significant lesions) and non-true bifurcation lesions into two simple categories called B1m (B for bifurcation, 1 m meaning only the main branch has significant lesion) and B1S lesions (B for bifurcation and 1 s meaning only the side branch has significant lesion). Moreover, at the same time, additional unlimited suffixes can be added if needed to describe a given bifurcation lesion, making this bifurcation also very comprehensive. In this perspective, the shortcomings of the Medina classification compared to the Movahed classification are discussed in detail.