Prospective randomized trial comparing a nitinol self-expanding coronary stent with low-pressure dilatation and a high-pressure balloon expandable bare metal stent
Heart and Vessels, ISSN: 0910-8327, Vol: 23, Issue: 1, Page: 1-8
2008
- 17Citations
- 19Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations17
- Citation Indexes17
- 17
- CrossRef15
- Captures19
- Readers19
- 19
Article Description
The recent SCORES trial demonstrated that lower dilatation pressures seen with self-expanding (SE) stents may be associated with lower rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR). To determine whether SE stents with low-pressure dilatation are as safe and effective as balloon expandable (BE) stents. We randomly assigned 254 patients with 279 coronary lesions to groups receiving either SE with low-pressure dilatation <12 atm (n = 143) or conventional BE stents (n = 136). Thereafter, acute results and long-term outcomes were compared. Baseline patient and angiographic characteristics were similar in two groups. The incidence of procedural complications, such as slow flow, side branch occlusion, and edge dissection were significantly lower in the SE group than in the BE group (overall: SE, 17; BE, 35; P < 0.01), and the occurrence of myocardial infarction tended to be lower in SE than in BE (SE, 1; BE, 4; not significant). Although acute gain was significantly smaller with SE than BE (SE, 2.21 ± 0.65 mm; BE, 2.42 ± 0.62; P < 0.01), probably due to gradual expansion of the SE stent, nearly identical minimum luminal diameters on follow-up angiography (SE, 2.14 ± 0.92 mm vs. BE, 2.22 ± 0.93; not significant) and similar angiographic restenosis (SE, 18.1% vs. BE, 20.5%). and TLR rates (SE, 16.1% vs. BE, 14.0%) were apparent. This prospective randomized trial demonstrates that SE stents with low-pressure dilatation is safe and effective strategy for treating coronary arterial stenosis. © Springer Japan 2008.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=39449114717&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00380-007-1000-2; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18273539; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00380-007-1000-2; http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s00380-007-1000-2; http://www.springerlink.com/index/pdf/10.1007/s00380-007-1000-2; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00380-007-1000-2; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00380-007-1000-2
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know