Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Shah, Kanan | Parikh, Keyur | Chag, Milan | Shah, Urmil | Chandarana, Anish | Baxi, Hemang | Naik, Ajay | Goyal, Ramesh K.;
Affiliations: L.J. Institute of Pharmacy, Ahmedabad, India | Care Cardiovascular Consultants Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad, India | L.M. College of Pharmacy, Ahmedabad, India
Note: [] Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: In the light of increased incidences of cardiovascular diseases world wide, there is also an increase in number of percutaneous interventions (PCI) and many new devices are introduced that may be expensive. Distal Protection Device (DPD) is one of them with costs that are twice those of conventional devices. In the present study we evaluated the usefulness of DPD after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients undergoing PTCA and to analyze the effect on major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at the end of three months and consider its requirement as compared to the conventional stents. 109 patients with ACS were divided into two groups: PTCA done using DPD and PTCA done without DPD. Patients having active significant bleeding, major surgery within the previous six weeks or those who were participating in other trials using investigational drugs or devices were excluded. All patients without DPD required the administration of intracoronary (IC) adenosine and sodium nitroprusside to avoid no-reflow but in patients with DPD only 7.7% patients required IC vasodilators. In patients with DPD only 29% patients required the additional use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (Gp IIb/IIIa) receptor antagonists as compared to 100% usage in patients without DPD. On studying the MACE data it was found that amongst the patients with DPD no patient had either dysnea or needed repeat revascularization or urgent Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG). Amongst the patients without DPD four patients had angina and one had dysnea. In conclusion, although one can suggest that the use of DPD is safe and, it cannot be used indiscriminately because it is an expensive modality.
Journal: International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 205-212, 2006
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
[email protected]
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office [email protected]
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: [email protected]