Outcomes of the Tryton‐dedicated bifurcation stent for the treatment of true coronary bifurcations: Individual‐patient‐data pooled analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the dedicated Tryton side branch (SB) stent for the treatment of true bifurcations involving large SBs. Background Bifurcation lesions are associated with lower procedural success and a higher risk of adverse cardiac events. Provisional stenting (PS) is currently the default approach for the treatment of bifurcation lesions. The Tryton stent is a dedicated bifurcation stent system for the treatment of true bifurcation lesions. Methods We performed an individual‐patient‐data pooled post‐hoc analysis of the Tryton Pivotal randomized controlled trial and post‐approval Confirmatory Study. Only patients with true bifurcations involving a SB ≥ 2.25 mm in diameter were included. The primary endpoint was non‐inferiority of Tryton compared with PS for target vessel failure (TVF) at 1 year. Results Of the 411 patients meeting the criteria for enrolment, 287 patients were treated with the Tryton stent and 124 with PS. Procedural success was higher in the Tryton group (95.4 versus 82.3%, P < 0.0001). TVF at 1 year was 8.1% in the Tryton group and 9.7% in the PS group, meeting the pre‐specified criteria for non‐inferiority established for the randomized controlled trail (pnon‐inferiority = 0.02). At 9‐month angiographic follow‐up, SB diameter stenosis was significantly lower in the Tryton group (29.3 ± 21.9 versus 41.1 ± 17.5, P = 0.0008) and in‐segment binary restenosis (diameter stenosis ≥ 50%) was higher in the PS group (19.0 versus 34.2%, respectively, P = 0.052). Conclusions In patients with true bifurcations involving a large SB, treatment with the Tryton SD Stent was clinically non‐inferior to PS and showed favorable angiographic outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".