0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessBackground Bifurcation lesions are frequent among patients with symptomatic coronary disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention. Current evidence recommends a conservative (provisional) approach when treating the side branch (SB). Objectives The TRYTON (Prospective, Single Blind, Randomized Controlled Study to Evaluate the Safety & Effectiveness of the Tryton Side Branch Stent Used With DES in Treatment of de Novo Bifurcation Lesions in the Main Branch & Side Branch in Native Coronaries) bifurcation trial sought to compare treatment of de novo true bifurcation lesions using a dedicated bifurcation stent or SB balloon angioplasty. Methods We randomly assigned patients with true bifurcation lesions to a main vessel stent plus provisional stenting or the bifurcation stent. The primary endpoint (powered for noninferiority) was target vessel failure (TVF) (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization). The secondary angiographic endpoint (powered for superiority) was in-segment percent diameter stenosis of the SB at 9 months. Results We randomized 704 patients with bifurcation coronary lesions at 58 centers (30 from Europe and 28 from the United States). At 9 months, TVF was 17.4% in the bifurcation stent group compared with 12.8% in the provisional group (p = 0.11), mainly because of a higher periprocedural myocardial infarction rate (13.6% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.19). The TVF difference of +4.6% (2-sided 95% confidence interval: −1.0 to 10.3; upper limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval: 10.3) was not within the pre-specified noninferiority margin of 5.5% (p = 0.42 for noninferiority). The SB in-segment diameter stenosis among the angiographic cohort was lower in the bifurcation stent group compared with the provisional group (31.6% vs. 38.6%, p = 0.002 for superiority), with no difference in binary restenosis rates (diameter stenosis ≥50%) at 9 months follow-up (22.6% vs. 26.8%, p = 0.44). Conclusions Provisional stenting should remain the preferred strategy for treatment of non–left main true coronary bifurcation lesions. (Prospective, Single Blind, Randomized Controlled Study to Evaluate the Safety & Effectiveness of the Tryton Side Branch Stent Used With DES in Treatment of de Novo Bifurcation Lesions in the Main Branch & Side Branch in Native Coronaries [TRYTON]; NCT01258972)
Philippe Généreux, Indulis Kumsārs, Maciej Lesiak, Annapoorna Kini, Géza Fontos, Ton Slagboom, Imre Ungi, D. Christopher Metzger, Joanna J. Wykrzykowska, Pieter R. Stella, Antonio L. Bartorelli, William F. Fearon, Thierry Lefévre, Robert L. Feldman, Laura LaSalle, Dominic P. Francese, Yoshinobu Onuma, Maik J. Grundeken, Héctor M. García‐García, Linda L. Laak, Donald E. Cutlip, Aaron V. Kaplan, Patrick W. Serruys, Martin B. Leon (2015). A Randomized Trial of a Dedicated Bifurcation Stent Versus Provisional Stenting in the Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 65(6), pp. 533-543, DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.11.031.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2015
Authors
24
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
English
Journal
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
DOI
10.1016/j.jacc.2014.11.031
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access