Literature DB >> 10551700

Does angiography six months after coronary intervention influence management and outcome? Benestent II Investigators.

P N Ruygrok1, R Melkert, M A Morel, J A Ormiston, F W Bär, F Fernandez-Avilès, H Suryapranata, K D Dawkins, C Hanet, P W Serruys.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to assess whether angiography six months after coronary balloon angioplasty or stent implantation has an influence on clinical management and one-year outcome.
BACKGROUND: The Benestent II study randomized 827 patients to balloon angioplasty or stent implantation. A subrandomization was undertaken allocating patients to six-month clinical follow-up (CF) or clinical and angiographic follow-up (AF).
METHODS: Seven hundred and six patients (349 CF and 357 AF) had no intercurrent angiography, so that restenosis and disease progression elsewhere remained unknown until the time of six-month follow-up. These two groups, which were well matched at enrolment, were compared with respect to symptoms, medication and major cardiac events defined as death, myocardial infarction and need for revascularization at six and 12 months.
RESULTS: At six-month follow-up, 53 (15%) of the CF and 76 (21%) of the AF patients had stable angina (p = 0.041), while 5 (1%) and 4 (1%) had symptoms of unstable angina. At 12-month follow-up, 44 (13%) patients in both groups had stable angina, and only 1 patient in the CF group had unstable angina. Seventy-seven patients (27 CF and 50 AF; p < 0.01) had major cardiac events between 6 and 12 months. Of the 349 patients in the CF group, 21 underwent repeat percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass graft surgery between 6 and 12 months, compared with 44 of the 357 patients in the AF group (relative risk 2.05 [1.24 to 3.37], p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had AF six months after balloon angioplasty or stent implantation experienced more repeat revascularization procedures than those who had CF. They also had significantly more angina at six-month follow-up but this may be due to bias.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10551700     DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00380-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  13 in total

1.  Targeting drug-eluting stents to lesions at high risk of restenosis: a flawed approach?

Authors:  A K Siotia; A C Morton; S Mofidi; C Wales; C Newman; J Gunn
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  Clinical impact of routine follow-up coronary angiography after second- or third-generation drug-eluting stent insertion in clinically stable patients.

Authors:  Seonghoon Choi; Hee-Sun Mun; Min-Kyung Kang; Jung Rae Cho; Seong Woo Han; Namho Lee
Journal:  Korean J Intern Med       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 2.884

Review 3.  Routine Angiographic Follow-Up After Coronary Artery Disease Revascularization: Is Seeing Believing?

Authors:  Harsh Agrawal; Mohamed Teleb; Saba Lahsaei; Luis Carbajal; Ruben Montanez; Joseph P Carrozza
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  Target lesion revascularisation in patients treated with a sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stent.

Authors:  Michael Maeng; Lisette Okkels Jensen; Klaus Rasmussen; Jens Flensted Lassen; Lars Romer Krusell; Per Thayssen; Leif Thuesen
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-12-28       Impact factor: 5.994

5.  One year cost effectiveness of sirolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents in the treatment of single native de novo coronary lesions: an analysis from the RAVEL trial.

Authors:  B A van Hout; P W Serruys; P A Lemos; M J B M van den Brand; G-A van Es; W K Lindeboom; M-C Morice
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.994

6.  Cost effectiveness of drug eluting coronary artery stenting in a UK setting: cost-utility study.

Authors:  A Bagust; A D Grayson; N D Palmer; R A Perry; T Walley
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-04-14       Impact factor: 5.994

7.  Is routine stenting for acute myocardial infarction superior to balloon angioplasty? A randomised comparison in a large cohort of unselected patients.

Authors:  H Suryapranata; G De Luca; A W J van 't Hof; J P Ottervanger; J C A Hoorntje; J-H E Dambrink; A T M Gosselink; F Zijlstra; M-J de Boer
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 8.  A quantitative estimate of bare-metal stenting compared with balloon angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction: angiographic measures in relation to clinical outcome.

Authors:  Tone Svilaas; Iwan C C van der Horst; Felix Zijlstra
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 5.994

9.  Impact of routine angiographic follow-up after percutaneous coronary drug-eluting stenting for unprotected left main disease: the Turin Registry.

Authors:  Giuseppe G L Biondi-Zoccai; Elena Giraudi; Claudio Moretti; Filippo Sciuto; Pierluigi Omedè; Dario Sillano; Paolo Garrone; Gian Paolo Trevi; Imad Sheiban
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2010-01-03       Impact factor: 5.460

10.  Short and long-term benefits of sirolimus-eluting stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Authors:  Giuseppe De Luca; Marco Valgimigli; Christian Spaulding; Maurizio Menichelli; Hans Peter Brunner-La Rocca; Bas L van der Hoeven; Emilio Di Lorenzo; Luis-S Diaz de la Llera; Vincenzo Pasceri; Undine Pittl; Gianfranco Percoco; Roberto Violini; Gregg W Stone
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2009-02-04       Impact factor: 2.300

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.