4.7 Article

Continued symptomatic improvement three to five years after transmyocardial revascularization with CO2 laser -: A late clinical follow-up of the Norwegian randomized trial with transmyocardial revascularization

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 10, Pages 1588-1593

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01828-4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES The goals of this study were to assess late clinical outcome and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transmyocardial revascularization with CO2 laser (TMR). BACKGROUND During the 1990s TMR emerged as a treatment option for patients with refractory angina not eligible for conventional revascularization. Few reports exist on clinical effects and LVEF >3 years after TMR. METHODS One hundred patients with refractory angina not eligible for conventional revascularization were block-randomized 1:1 to receive continued medical treatment or medical treatment combined with TMR. The patients were evaluated at baseline and after 3, 12 and 43 (range: 32 to 60) months with end points to angina, hospitalizations due to acute myocardial infarctions or unstable angina, heart failure and LVEF Mortality was registered and MOS 36 Short-Form Health Survey answered at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS Forty-three months after TMR, angina symptoms were still significantly improved, and unstable angina hospitalizations reduced by 55% (p < 0.001). Heart failure treatment (p < 0.01) increased, whereas the number of acute myocardial infarctions, LVEF and mortality was not affected. Quality of life was improved 3, 6 and 12 months after TMR. CONCLUSIONS Forty-three months after TMR, angina symptoms and hospitalizations due to unstable angina were significantly reduced, heart failure treatment increased and LVEF and mortality were seemingly unaffected. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1588-93) (C) 2002 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available