Angioplasty and stenting have historically changed the treatment of coronary artery disease [ [1] Versaci F. Gaspardone A. Tomai F. Proietti I. Ghini A.S. Altamura L. et al. A comparison of coronary artery stenting with angioplasty for isolated stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery: five year clinical follow up. Heart. 2004; 90: 672-675 Crossref PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar ]. However, several procedural drawbacks and complications, such as periprocedural bleeding [ [2] Ando G. Capodanno D. Radial versus femoral access in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2015; 163: 932-940 Crossref PubMed Scopus (72) Google Scholar ], the need of optimization of duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after stenting [ [3] Costa F. Vranckx P. Leonardi S. Moscarella E. Ando G. Calabro P. et al. Impact of clinical presentation on ischaemic and bleeding outcomes in patients receiving 6- or 24-month duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy after stent implantation: a pre-specified analysis from the PRODIGY (Prolonging Dual-antiplatelet Treatment after Grading Stent-Induced Intimal Hyperplasia) trial. Eur. Heart J. 2015; 36: 1242-1251 Crossref PubMed Scopus (72) Google Scholar ] or the occurrence of acute kidney injury after percutaneous interventions [ [4] Narula A. Mehran R. Weisz G. Dangas G.D. Yu J. Genereux P. et al. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the HORIZONS-AMI substudy. Eur. Heart J. 2014; 35: 1533-1540 Crossref PubMed Scopus (167) Google Scholar ] remain unresolved issues in contemporary interventional cardiology.