Matching to guide the design and predict the outcome of randomized atherectomy trials.
Article: Cutting balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: a matched comparison with rotational atherectomy, additional stent implantation and balloon angioplasty.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to determine whether cutting balloon angioplasty (CBA) has advantages over other modalities in treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Controversies exist regarding optimal treatment for ISR. Recently, CBA emerged as a tool in management of ISR. A total of 648 lesions treated for ISR were divided into four groups according to the treatment strategy: CBA, rotational atherectomy (ROTA), additional stenting (STENT), and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Following the matching process, 258 lesions were entered into the analysis. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar among the groups (p = NS). Acute lumen gain was significantly higher in the STENT group (2.12 +/- 0.7 mm), whereas in the CBA group the gain was similar to one achieved following ROTA and following PTCA (1.70 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.79 +/- 0.5 mm and 1.56 +/- 0.7 mm, respectively; p = NS). The lumen loss at follow-up was lower for the CBA versus ROTA and versus STENT (0.63 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.30 +/- 0.8 mm and 1.36 +/- 0.8 mm, respectively; p < 0.0001), yielding a lower recurrent restenosis rate (20% vs. 35.9% and 41.4%, respectively; p < 0.05). By multivariate analysis, CBA (odds ratio [OR] = 0.17; confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.51; p = 0.001) and diffuse restenosis type at baseline (OR = 2.07; CI, 1.15 to 3.71; p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of target lesion revascularization. We conclude that CBA is a safe and efficient technique for treatment of ISR, with immediate results similar to atheroablation and better clinical and angiographic outcomes at follow-up. This approach might be implemented as a viable option in management of focal ISR and to prepare diffuse ISR for brachytherapy treatment.Journal of the American College of Cardiology 10/2001; 38(3):672-9. · 14.16 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.