6,963 publications from this institution
This article focuses on stenting within clinical trials. Topics include results from the ABSORB trial, novel stent designs, stent thrombosis, and results of a second-generation stent evaluated in the SPIRIT III trial, among other things.
Although myocardial contrast echo has been used recently in human studies, no study is available at the present time which relates contrast echo findings to the degree of coronary artery stenosis. The present study is the first attempt to determine whether a quantitative relationship exists between regional myocardial echo contrast disappearance rate ('washout') and the severity of coronary artery stenosis. Manual injection of sonicated iopamidol (Iopamiro 370) into the left main coronary artery with simultaneous cross-sectional echo registration provided the myocardial echo-contrast images. From the digitized images, an echo contrast time-intensity curve was constructed for the proximal basal interventricular septum (region I) and the mid-distal portion of the interventricular septum (region II). From these curves, T50 was calculated after Fourier transformation and mono-exponential curve fitting. The percentage stenosis area (%A) of the left descending coronary artery (LAD) was calculated from routine coronary arteriograms using a computer-based system. Thirty patients (22 men, 8 women; mean age 58 +/- 10 years) were included in the study. Group I (n = 7) had normal LAD, group II (n = 18) had LAD stenosis of varying degrees. Five patients were not suitable for quantitative evaluation. A curvilinear relation was found between T50 and %A. (T50 = 3.0 x e0.01%A; r = 0.78; P less than 0.05). Patients with asynergy had significantly longer T50 (8.2 +/- 2.5 s) than did patients without asynergy (4.2 +/- 1.5 s) (P less than 0.05). All patients with greater than 75% LAD %A had prolonged T50. T50 might be useful index for studying regional myocardial perfusion during cardiac catheterization.
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both).We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point--a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry.Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003).CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.)
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Correction to: npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine (2016) 26, 16017; doi:10.1038/npjpcrm.2016.17; published online 21 April 2016 Since the online publication of the above article, it has been noted that references 87 and 88 were described as observational studies, when in fact they were randomisedcontrolled trials.