For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
43
views
23
references
 Top references
cited by
27
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      1,999
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Trends in Cause of Death After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The impact of changing demographics on causes of long-term death after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains incompletely defined.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials.

          Ellen Keeley, Judith Boura, Cindy Grines (2003)
          Many trials have been done to compare primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with thrombolytic therapy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (AMI). Our aim was to look at the combined results of these trials and to ascertain which reperfusion therapy is most effective. We did a search of published work and identified 23 trials, which together randomly assigned 7739 thrombolytic-eligible patients with ST-segment elevation AMI to primary PTCA (n=3872) or thrombolytic therapy (n=3867). Streptokinase was used in eight trials (n=1837), and fibrin-specific agents in 15 (n=5902). Most patients who received thrombolytic therapy (76%, n=2939) received a fibrin-specific agent. Stents were used in 12 trials, and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in eight. We identified short-term and long-term clinical outcomes of death, non-fatal reinfarction, and stroke, and did subgroup analyses to assess the effect of type of thrombolytic agent used and the strategy of emergent hospital transfer for primary PTCA. All analyses were done with and without inclusion of the SHOCK trial data. Primary PTCA was better than thrombolytic therapy at reducing overall short-term death (7% [n=270] vs 9% [360]; p=0.0002), death excluding the SHOCK trial data (5% [199] vs 7% [276]; p=0.0003), non-fatal reinfarction (3% [80] vs 7% [222]; p<0.0001), stroke (1% [30] vs 2% [64]; p=0.0004), and the combined endpoint of death, non-fatal reinfarction, and stroke (8% [253] vs 14% [442]; p<0.0001). The results seen with primary PTCA remained better than those seen with thrombolytic therapy during long-term follow-up, and were independent of both the type of thrombolytic agent used, and whether or not the patient was transferred for primary PTCA. Primary PTCA is more effective than thrombolytic therapy for the treatment of ST-segment elevation AMI.
          Article 0 comments Cited 607 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group.

            Patrick W. Serruys, Peter P.T.h. de Jaegere, Ferdinand Kiemeneij … (1994)
            Balloon-expandable coronary-artery stents were developed to prevent coronary restenosis after coronary angioplasty. These devices hold coronary vessels open at sites that have been dilated. However, it is unknown whether stenting improves long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes as compared with standard balloon angioplasty. A total of 520 patients with stable angina and a single coronary-artery lesion were randomly assigned to either stent implantation (262 patients) or standard balloon angioplasty (258 patients). The primary clinical end points were death, the occurrence of a cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, the need for coronary-artery bypass surgery, or a second percutaneous intervention involving the previously treated lesion, either at the time of the initial procedure or during the subsequent seven months. The primary angiographic end point was the minimal luminal diameter at follow-up, as determined by quantitative coronary angiography. After exclusions, 52 patients in the stent group (20 percent) and 76 patients in the angioplasty group (30 percent) reached a primary clinical end point (relative risk, 0.68; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.92; P = 0.02). The difference in clinical-event rates was explained mainly by a reduced need for a second coronary angioplasty in the stent group (relative risk, 0.58; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.85; P = 0.005). The mean (+/- SD) minimal luminal diameters immediately after the procedure were 2.48 +/- 0.39 mm in the stent group and 2.05 +/- 0.33 mm in the angioplasty group; at follow-up, the diameters were 1.82 +/- 0.64 mm in the stent group and 1.73 +/- 0.55 mm in the angioplasty group (P = 0.09), which correspond to rates of restenosis (diameter of stenosis, > or = 50 percent) of 22 and 32 percent, respectively (P = 0.02). Peripheral vascular complications necessitating surgery, blood transfusion, or both were more frequent after stenting than after balloon angioplasty (13.5 vs. 3.1 percent, P < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was significantly longer in the stent group than in the angioplasty group (8.5 vs. 3.1 days, P < 0.001). Over seven months of follow-up, the clinical and angiographic outcomes were better in patients who received a stent than in those who received standard coronary angioplasty. However, this benefit was achieved at the cost of a significantly higher risk of vascular complications at the access site and a longer hospital stay.
            Article 0 comments Cited 304 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis.

              Christoph Stettler, Simon Wandel, Sabin Allemann … (2007)
              Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents. We searched relevant sources from inception to March, 2007, and contacted investigators and manufacturers to identify randomised controlled trials in patients with coronary artery disease that compared drug-eluting with bare-metal stents, or that compared sirolimus-eluting stents head-to-head with paclitaxel-eluting stents. Safety outcomes included mortality, myocardial infarction, and definite stent thrombosis; the effectiveness outcome was target lesion revascularisation. We included 38 trials (18,023 patients) with a follow-up of up to 4 years. Trialists and manufacturers provided additional data on clinical outcomes for 29 trials. We did a network meta-analysis with a mixed-treatment comparison method to combine direct within-trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Mortality was similar in the three groups: hazard ratios (HR) were 1.00 (95% credibility interval 0.82-1.25) for sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents, 1.03 (0.84-1.22) for paclitaxel-eluting versus bare-metal stents, and 0.96 (0.83-1.24) for sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents. Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with the lowest risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0.81, 95% credibility interval 0.66-0.97, p=0.030 vs bare-metal stents; 0.83, 0.71-1.00, p=0.045 vs paclitaxel-eluting stents). There were no significant differences in the risk of definite stent thrombosis (0 days to 4 years). However, the risk of late definite stent thrombosis (>30 days) was increased with paclitaxel-eluting stents (HR 2.11, 95% credibility interval 1.19-4.23, p=0.017 vs bare-metal stents; 1.85, 1.02-3.85, p=0.041 vs sirolimus-eluting stents). The reduction in target lesion revascularisation seen with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents was more pronounced with sirolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.70, 0.56-0.84; p=0.0021). The risks of mortality associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents are similar. Sirolimus-eluting stents seem to be clinically better than bare-metal and paclitaxel-eluting stents.
              Article 0 comments Cited 222 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: Circulation
                Abbreviated Title: Circulation
                Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                ISSN (Print): 0009-7322
                ISSN (Electronic): 1524-4539
                Publication date Created: March 25 2014
                Publication date (Print): March 25 2014
                Volume: 129
                Issue: 12
                Pages: 1286-1294
                Affiliations
                [1 ]From the Divisions of Cardiovascular Diseases (D.B.S., P.J.P., M.S., D.R.H., B.J.G., C.S.R., R.D.S., R.G.) and Biomedical Statistics and Informatics (R.J.L.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Division of Cardiovascular Diseases (I.D.M.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
                Article
                DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006518
                SO-VID: c0f62ed3-b8bf-4091-9e18-382f4f68f50c
                Copyright © © 2014
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content1,999

                See all similar

                Cited by43

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,757

                See all reference authors