Are Ultrathin Stents Optimal for Bifurcation Lesions? Insights From Computational Modeling of Provisional and DK‐Crush Techniques

ABSTRACT Background Complex coronary bifurcation lesions remain challenging in percutaneous coronary intervention, with stent design and deployment strategy influencing clinical outcomes. Aims This study compares the mechanical and hemodynamic performance of the ultrathin‐strut Orsiro and thin‐strut Xience Sierra stent in provisional side branch (PSB) and double kissing crush (DKC) techniques. Methods We used finite element analyses of bifurcation stent deployment to assess malapposition, ostium clearance, and arterial wall stress for both techniques. Computational fluid dynamics simulations quantified the luminal exposure to low time‐averaged endothelial shear stress (TAESS < 0.4 Pa) and high shear rates (> 1000 s⁻¹). Results In PSB, Orsiro showed higher malapposition (13.0% vs. 9.6%) but improved SB ostium clearance (77% vs. 64%) and lower low‐TAESS exposure (30.3% vs. 33.6%) compared to Xience. Orsiro also produced higher arterial wall stresses, particularly during kissing balloon inflation. In DKC, differences in malapposition and ostium clearance diminished between stents, though Orsiro retained a hemodynamic advantage with lower low‐TAESS (28.2% vs. 36.3%). Conclusions Stent design influenced outcomes more strongly in PSB, where anatomical interaction and platform‐specific behavior impacted both structural and hemodynamic results. In DKC, procedural complexity minimized those differences, making the stenting technique the primary performance driver. Nonetheless, Orsiro consistently preserved more favorable flow conditions. These findings highlight the need to match device selection with lesion characteristics in PSB, while in DKC, optimizing procedural steps may have a greater impact than the choice of stent platform.