6,963 publications from this institution
Angina pectoris is chest pain caused by ischemia of the myocardium secondary to a supply/demand mismatch. Myocardial ischemia is caused by one or more flow-limiting stenoses in one or more of the epicardial coronary arteries, while in a minority it is caused by coronary vasospasms or microvascular dysfunction. Historically, clinical research evaluating percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treatment is mostly focused on the quantification of the failure of the treatment including (cardiac) death, myocardial infarctions (MIs), repeat revascularizations, and stent thrombosis (ST). A patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument quantifies the status of a patient's health condition in which the information comes directly from the patient. The most widely used PRO to assess angina is the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ). The SAQ has five domains, including "physical limitation", "angina stability", "angina frequency", "treatment satisfaction", and "disease perception". Angina can be assessed using PRO or site-reported outcomes, both with their own strengths and weaknesses.
Background 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)