Why the study?
Does coronary balloon angioplasty improve long-term outcomes compared to the natural course of the untreated disorder or bypass surgery?
Does coronary balloon angioplasty improve long-term outcomes compared to the natural course of the untreated disorder or bypass surgery?
Coronary balloon angioplasty provides clear functional improvement comparable to bypass surgery, despite a 30% early recurrence rate.
Long-term results after coronary balloon angioplasty are characterized by an eventful early period up to six months, with about a 30% recurrence rate per lesion, and by a stable situation thereafter. Myocardial infarction due to the dilated site is extremely rare during follow-up because the smooth, elastic, inner lining of a restenosis is much less prone to thrombosis than the initial plaque. A positive effect of coronary angioplasty on survival has not been documented, but there is clear functional improvement over the natural course of the untreated disorder. The improvement is comparable to that attained by bypass surgery if repeat angioplasty during the first months is considered as part of the procedure rather than as proof of failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bernhard Meier (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: