Segmental comparison between a dedicated bifurcation stent and balloon angioplasty using intravascular ultrasound and three‐dimensional quantitative coronary angiography: A subgroup analysis of the Tryton IDE randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Randomized comparison between the Tryton Side Branch Stent (Tryton Medical, Durham, NC), used in combination with a main branch drug‐eluting stent (DES), and side branch balloon angioplasty (SBBA, in combination with a main branch DES) using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), and three‐dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D‐QCA). Background The Tryton stent has been developed to improve clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of bifurcation lesions. Methods We present the pre‐specified IVUS (n = 159) and 3D‐QCA (n = 190) sub‐group analyses of the Tryton coronary bifurcation trial (randomizing Tryton vs. SBBA). Results There were no differences in the main branch with regard to minimal lumen area (MLA) (5.33 ± 1.37 in Tryton vs. 5.69 ± 1.72 mm 2 in SBBA, P = 0.235) with low neo‐intima area in both groups. In the side branch, there were also no statistical significant differences between both groups (3.04 ± 1.02 in Tryton vs. 3.46 ± 1.15 mm 2 in SBBA, P = 0.072). On 3D‐QCA, no differences in minimal lumen diameter (MLD) and percentage diameter stenosis (%DS) were observed in the proximal and distal main branches. In the side branch, there were also no differences found in %DS and MLD (MLD: 1.34 ± 0.043 mm [Tryton] vs. 1.45 ± 0.31 mm [SBBA], P = 0.090). Conclusions There were no differences in 9‐month luminal dimensions of the side branch between the Tryton Stent and Side Branch Balloon Angioplasty, as assessed with IVUS (MLA) and 3D QCA (MLD). Angiographic and ultrasound results of the main branch were not negatively influenced by the Tryton stent. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".