Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2015
What is better for predilatation in bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: a non-compliant or a compliant balloon?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Özel Erdem, Taştan Ahmet, Öztürk Ali, Özcan Emin Evren, Uyar Samet, Şenarslan Ömer
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The bioresorbable vascular scaffold system (BVS) is a fully absorbable vascular treatment system. In this study, we aimed to compare the periprocedural effectiveness and long term results of non-compliant balloon (NCB) and compliant balloon (CB) systems, which are used for predilatation before BVS implantation.
METHODS: One hundred forty-six BVS-treated lesions from 119 patients were retrospectively analyzed in the study. Patients with acute coronary syndrome, stable angina and silent ischemia were included in the study. Lesions and patients were categorized into the NCB and CB groups according to the type of balloon used for predilatation. NCB was implemented on 72 lesions (59 patients) and CB was implemented on 74 lesions (60 patients). The two groups were compared on terms of procedural features and both in-hospital and 1-year clinical follow-up results. Chi-square and independent sample t test were performed for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of patient characteristics and lesion properties. The number of postdilated lesions was significantly higher in the CB group. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume were significantly lower in the NCB group. At follow-up, one patient had myocardial infarction in the CB group because of scaffold thrombosis and no mortality was observed.
CONCLUSION: Predilatation with NCB before BVS implantation reduces the need for postdilatation. In addition, use of NCB reduces the procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume but had no effect on 1 year clinical follow-up results compared with CB.
METHODS: One hundred forty-six BVS-treated lesions from 119 patients were retrospectively analyzed in the study. Patients with acute coronary syndrome, stable angina and silent ischemia were included in the study. Lesions and patients were categorized into the NCB and CB groups according to the type of balloon used for predilatation. NCB was implemented on 72 lesions (59 patients) and CB was implemented on 74 lesions (60 patients). The two groups were compared on terms of procedural features and both in-hospital and 1-year clinical follow-up results. Chi-square and independent sample t test were performed for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of patient characteristics and lesion properties. The number of postdilated lesions was significantly higher in the CB group. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume were significantly lower in the NCB group. At follow-up, one patient had myocardial infarction in the CB group because of scaffold thrombosis and no mortality was observed.
CONCLUSION: Predilatation with NCB before BVS implantation reduces the need for postdilatation. In addition, use of NCB reduces the procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume but had no effect on 1 year clinical follow-up results compared with CB.