AIMS: A randomized trial was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of a laser guidewire, in the treatment of chronic coronary occlusions. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 18 European centres, 303 patients with a chronic coronary occlusion were randomized to treatment with either the laser guidewire (n=144) or conventional guidewires (mechanical guidewire, n=159). The primary end-point of the study was treatment success, defined as reaching the true lumen distal to the occlusion by the allocated wire within 30 min of fluoroscopic time: laser guidewire vs mechanical guidewire; 52.8% (n=76) vs 47.2% (n=75), P=0.33. Serious adverse events following the initial guidewire attempt were 0% (laser guidewire) and 0.6% (mechanical guidewire), respectively. Angioplasty (performed following successful guidewire crossing) was successful in 179 patients (91%, laser guidewire n=79, mechanical guidewire n=100), followed by stent implantation in 149 (79%). At the 6-month angiographic follow-up, the difference in binary restenosis rate (laser guidewire vs mechanical guidewire; 45.5% vs 38.3 %, P=0.72) or reocclusion rate (25.8% vs 16.1%, P=0.15) did not reach statistical significance. At 1, 6 and 12 months, angina and event-free survival were 69%, 35% and 24% (laser guidewire) vs 74%, 40% and 31% (mechanical guidewire). CONCLUSION: Although laser guidewire technology was safe, the increase in crossing success did not reach statistical significance.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: A randomized trial was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of a laser guidewire, in the treatment of chronic coronary occlusions. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 18 European centres, 303 patients with a chronic coronary occlusion were randomized to treatment with either the laser guidewire (n=144) or conventional guidewires (mechanical guidewire, n=159). The primary end-point of the study was treatment success, defined as reaching the true lumen distal to the occlusion by the allocated wire within 30 min of fluoroscopic time: laser guidewire vs mechanical guidewire; 52.8% (n=76) vs 47.2% (n=75), P=0.33. Serious adverse events following the initial guidewire attempt were 0% (laser guidewire) and 0.6% (mechanical guidewire), respectively. Angioplasty (performed following successful guidewire crossing) was successful in 179 patients (91%, laser guidewire n=79, mechanical guidewire n=100), followed by stent implantation in 149 (79%). At the 6-month angiographic follow-up, the difference in binary restenosis rate (laser guidewire vs mechanical guidewire; 45.5% vs 38.3 %, P=0.72) or reocclusion rate (25.8% vs 16.1%, P=0.15) did not reach statistical significance. At 1, 6 and 12 months, angina and event-free survival were 69%, 35% and 24% (laser guidewire) vs 74%, 40% and 31% (mechanical guidewire). CONCLUSION: Although laser guidewire technology was safe, the increase in crossing success did not reach statistical significance.
Authors: Gerald S Werner; Michael Fritzenwanger; D Prochnau; G Schwarz; Andreas Krack; Markus Ferrari; Hans R Figulla Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2007-04-26 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Maksymilian P Opolski; Bríain Ó Hartaigh; Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Daniele Andreini; Filippo Cademartiri; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Martin Hadamitzky; Joerg Hausleiter; Gudrun Feuchtner; Yong-Jin Kim; Philipp A Kaufmann; Jonathon Leipsic; Erica Maffei; Gianluca Pontone; Gilbert Raff; Leslee J Shaw; Todd C Villines; James K Min Journal: Heart Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Nikolaos Konstantinidis; Michele Pighi; Ismail Dogu Kilic; Roberta Serdoz; Georgios Sianos; Carlo Di Mario Journal: Interv Cardiol Date: 2014-08