Linked Life Data

14988893

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/14988893

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
3
pubmed:dateCreated
2004-2-27
pubmed:abstractText
Few randomized studies compare outcomes for focal vs. diffuse in-stent restenosis (ISR) using conventional treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) for focal vs. diffuse ISR using conventional techniques. One hundred thirteen patients with ISR were prospectively classified as focal (< 10 mm) or diffuse (> 10 mm). Focal ISR was randomized to balloon angioplasty (n = 29) or restenting (n = 29) and diffuse ISR randomized to rotational atherectomy (n = 30) or restenting (n = 25). At 9 months, patients with focal ISR had higher survival free of MACEs than patients with diffuse ISR (86% vs. 63%; P < 0.005), with no difference between techniques. Only the presence of diffuse ISR was an independent predictor of MACE at 9 months. Thus, focal ISR has a low rate of MACE compared to diffuse ISR, which carries a high event rate regardless of treatment employed.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Mar
pubmed:issn
1522-1946
pubmed:author
pubmed:copyrightInfo
Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
61
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
344-9
pubmed:dateRevised
2010-11-18
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2004
pubmed:articleTitle
Percutaneous treatment of focal vs. diffuse in-stent restenosis: a prospective randomized comparison of conventional therapies.
pubmed:affiliation
Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908, USA. mragosta@virginia.edu
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Clinical Trial, Randomized Controlled Trial