97 research outputs found
TCT-260 Which is the Ideal Revascularization Strategy in Patients Presenting with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Proximal LAD Stenosis? Results from the ACUITY Study
n/
TCT-481 Treatment of "resistant" in-stent restenosis in the drug-eluting era: comparison of repeat stent versus balloon only strategy
n/
TCT-482 "Resistant" In-Stent Restenosis in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era: An Angiographic Description and Outcomes
Subtotal Occlusion of Left Anterior Coronary Artery in a Professional Athlete
Screening for cardiovascular disease in athletes is crucial to avoid
life-threatening complications. Here, we present the case of a fairly
asymptomatic young professional soccer player with several
cardiovascular risk factors, who proved to have significant coronary
artery disease on coronary computed tomography which was ordered based
on clinical suspicion and his family history. Informed consent for
publication was obtained from the patient. (C) 2018 S. Karger AG, Base
DRUG ELUTING STENTS VERSUS BARE METAL STENTS IN SAPHENOUS VEIN GRAFT INTERVENTION: AN UPDATED META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED TRIALS
Recommended from our members
Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention
Background Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES) has been increasingly used for revascularization of saphenous vein graft stenosis without strong clinical evidence favoring their use. Randomized controlled trials comparing DES versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft-percutaneous coronary intervention have been inconclusive. Methods and Results We performed a comprehensive literature search through May 15, 2018, for all eligible studies comparing DES versus BMS in patients with saphenous vein graft stenosis in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization. Six randomized controlled trials were eligible and included 1582 patients, of whom 797 received DES and 785 received BMS. The follow-up period ranged from 18 months to 60 months. There was no statistically significant difference between DES and BMS for all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR],1.11; 95% CI, 0.0.77-1.62; P=0.57), cardiovascular mortality (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.64-1.57; P=0.99), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.10; P=20), target vessel revascularization (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.11; P=0.14), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.48-1.16; P=0.19), or stent thrombosis (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.42-2.65; P=0.90). Conclusions In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for saphenous vein graft lesions, our results showed that there was no significant difference between DES and BMS for mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis
Leukocyte Count Is a Modulating Factor for the Mortality Benefit of Bivalirudin in ST-Segment–Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction
TCT- 474 Triple vs. Dual Antithrombotic Therapy In Patients With Atrial Fibrillation And Acute Coronary Syndromes: The AVIATOR Registry
TCT-620 Shift Of Patient Selection For Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty After Introduction Of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From A Single-center Registry
- …