Switch to
Predicate | Object |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
lifeskim:mentions | |
pubmed:issue |
10
|
pubmed:dateCreated |
1994-12-6
|
pubmed:abstractText |
Efficacy and major clinical end points were compared in 61 patients treated with a Stack autoperfusion balloon versus 36 patients who received a Palmaz-Schatz stent for acute or threatened closure during coronary angioplasty. The groups were comparable regarding baseline clinical characteristics. Procedural success was achieved in 43 patients (70%) treated with an autoperfusion balloon versus 34 patients (94%) who received a stent (p < 0.02). Emergency bypass surgery was performed in 13 patients (21%) with the autoperfusion balloon versus none of the patients with a stent (p < 0.001). In the stent group, 3 patients (8%) died (p < 0.05); 2 deaths were caused by thrombotic reclosure, and 1 patient died after unsuccessful stent delivery. Subacute reclosure during hospitalization occurred in none of the patients with autoperfusion versus 8 patients with the stent (22%) (p < 0.0002). Therefore, the number of patients with successful stent implantation at discharge decreased to 26 (72%). At 3-month follow-up in all patients with a successful intervention, reclosure or angiographic restenosis (> 50%) occurred in 13 patients with autoperfusion (30%) versus 3 patients with stents (12%) (p = NS). There was no difference in event-free survival during follow-up. Thus, both interventions were equally successful in the treatment of acute and threatened closure. More emergency surgery was performed in the autoperfusion balloon group, whereas a higher subacute reclosure rate was seen in the stent group. At 3-month follow-up, there were no significant differences regarding reclosure, restenosis, and event-free survival.
|
pubmed:language |
eng
|
pubmed:journal | |
pubmed:citationSubset |
AIM
|
pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
pubmed:month |
Nov
|
pubmed:issn |
0002-9149
|
pubmed:author | |
pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
pubmed:day |
15
|
pubmed:volume |
74
|
pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
pubmed:pagination |
1002-5
|
pubmed:dateRevised |
2010-11-18
|
pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Aged,
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary,
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Coronary Disease,
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Disease-Free Survival,
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Female,
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Male,
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Middle Aged,
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Myocardial Reperfusion,
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Prospective Studies,
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Recurrence,
pubmed-meshheading:7977036-Stents
|
pubmed:year |
1994
|
pubmed:articleTitle |
Autoperfusion balloon versus stent for acute or threatened closure during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.
|
pubmed:affiliation |
Department of Cardiology, Groningen University Hospital, The Netherlands.
|
pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Clinical Trial,
Comparative Study
|