{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018378378378378378, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006486486486486486, 'mean_word_length': 6.291338582677166, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Editorial Multivessel Disease

Soon after the introduction of coronary artery bypass surgery, the completeness of revascularization became a matter of concern. Several early surgical studies confirmed the belief that better clinical outcomes were obtained when each and every angiographically visible stenosis was bypassed by a distal anastomosis.1,2 Similarly, among patients with multivessel disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), complete revascularization was found to provide a significant advantage over incomplete revascularization in terms of reintervention, myocardial infarction, and death.3,4 However, a careful analysis of surgically treated multivessel disease patients in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) trial showed that 1 graft to any system other than the left anterior descending confers no long-term advantage over PCI and may actually be deleterious.5