The Experts below are selected from a list of 318 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
William Wijns - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fractional flow reserve guided versus angiography guided coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery
Circulation, 2013Co-Authors: Gabor G. Toth, Bernard De Bruyne, F. Casselman, Frederic De Vroey, Stylianos A. Pyxaras, Luigi Di Serafino, Frank Van Praet, Carlos Van Mieghem, Bernard Stockman, William WijnsAbstract:Background—Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is well established for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, yet little is known about candidates for coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery. Methods and Results—From 2006 to 2010, we retrospectively included in this registry 627 consecutive patients treated by coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery having at least 1 angiographically intermediate stenosis. In 429 patients, coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery was based solely on angiography (angiography-guided group). In 198 patients, at least 1 intermediate stenosis was Grafted with an FFR ≤0.80 or deferred with an FFR >0.80 (FFR-guided group). The end point was major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years, defined as the composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of angiographic multivessel disease was similar in the angiography-guided and FFR-guided groups (404 [94.2%] versus 186 [93.9%]; P=0.722). In the FFR-guided group, this was significan...
-
Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Circulation, 2013Co-Authors: Gabor G. Toth, Bernard De Bruyne, F. Casselman, Frederic De Vroey, Stylianos A. Pyxaras, Luigi Di Serafino, Frank Van Praet, Carlos Van Mieghem, Bernard Stockman, William WijnsAbstract:Background—Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is well established for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, yet little is known about candidates for coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery. Methods and Results—From 2006 to 2010, we retrospectively included in this registry 627 consecutive patients treated by coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery having at least 1 angiographically intermediate stenosis. In 429 patients, coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery was based solely on angiography (angiography-guided group). In 198 patients, at least 1 intermediate stenosis was Grafted with an FFR ≤0.80 or deferred with an FFR >0.80 (FFR-guided group). The end point was major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years, defined as the composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of angiographic multivessel disease was similar in the angiography-guided and FFR-guided groups (404 [94.2%] versus 186 [93.9%]; P=0.722). In the FFR-guided group, this was significan...
-
one year outcomes of coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting for multisystem disease a meta analysis of individual patient data from randomized clinical trials
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2005Co-Authors: William Wijns, Patrick W. Serruys, Marcus Flather, Nestor Mercado, Ulrich Sigwart, Rodney H Stables, William W Oneill, Alfredo E Rodriguez, Pedro A LemosAbstract:Background We aimed to provide a quantitative analysis of the 1-year clinical outcomes of patients with multisystem coronary artery disease who were included in recent randomized trials of percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting versus coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery. Methods An individual patient database was composed of 4 trials (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study, Stent or Surgery Trial, Argentine Randomized Trial of Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in Multivessel Disease 2, and Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study 2) that compared percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting (N = 1518) versus coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery (N = 1533). The primary clinical end point of this study was the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 1 year after randomization. Secondary combined end points included the incidence of repeat revascularization at 1 year. All analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Results After 1 year of follow-up, 8.7% of patients randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting versus 9.1% of patients randomized to coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery reached the primary clinical end point (hazard ratio 0.95 and 95% confidence interval 0.74’1.2). Repeat revascularization procedures occurred more frequently in patients allocated to percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting compared with coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery (18% vs 4.4%; hazard ratio 4.4 and 95% confidence interval 3.3’5.9). The percentage of patients who were free from angina was slightly lower after percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting than after coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery (77% vs 82%; P = .002). Conclusions One year after the initial procedure, percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting and coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery provided a similar degree of protection against death, myocardial infarction, or stroke for patients with multisystem disease. Repeat revascularization procedures remain high after percutaneous coronary intervention, but the difference with coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery has narrowed in the era of stenting.
Gabor G. Toth - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fractional flow reserve guided versus angiography guided coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery
Circulation, 2013Co-Authors: Gabor G. Toth, Bernard De Bruyne, F. Casselman, Frederic De Vroey, Stylianos A. Pyxaras, Luigi Di Serafino, Frank Van Praet, Carlos Van Mieghem, Bernard Stockman, William WijnsAbstract:Background—Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is well established for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, yet little is known about candidates for coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery. Methods and Results—From 2006 to 2010, we retrospectively included in this registry 627 consecutive patients treated by coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery having at least 1 angiographically intermediate stenosis. In 429 patients, coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery was based solely on angiography (angiography-guided group). In 198 patients, at least 1 intermediate stenosis was Grafted with an FFR ≤0.80 or deferred with an FFR >0.80 (FFR-guided group). The end point was major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years, defined as the composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of angiographic multivessel disease was similar in the angiography-guided and FFR-guided groups (404 [94.2%] versus 186 [93.9%]; P=0.722). In the FFR-guided group, this was significan...
-
Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Circulation, 2013Co-Authors: Gabor G. Toth, Bernard De Bruyne, F. Casselman, Frederic De Vroey, Stylianos A. Pyxaras, Luigi Di Serafino, Frank Van Praet, Carlos Van Mieghem, Bernard Stockman, William WijnsAbstract:Background—Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is well established for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, yet little is known about candidates for coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery. Methods and Results—From 2006 to 2010, we retrospectively included in this registry 627 consecutive patients treated by coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery having at least 1 angiographically intermediate stenosis. In 429 patients, coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery was based solely on angiography (angiography-guided group). In 198 patients, at least 1 intermediate stenosis was Grafted with an FFR ≤0.80 or deferred with an FFR >0.80 (FFR-guided group). The end point was major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years, defined as the composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of angiographic multivessel disease was similar in the angiography-guided and FFR-guided groups (404 [94.2%] versus 186 [93.9%]; P=0.722). In the FFR-guided group, this was significan...
Frederic De Vroey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fractional flow reserve guided versus angiography guided coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery
Circulation, 2013Co-Authors: Gabor G. Toth, Bernard De Bruyne, F. Casselman, Frederic De Vroey, Stylianos A. Pyxaras, Luigi Di Serafino, Frank Van Praet, Carlos Van Mieghem, Bernard Stockman, William WijnsAbstract:Background—Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is well established for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, yet little is known about candidates for coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery. Methods and Results—From 2006 to 2010, we retrospectively included in this registry 627 consecutive patients treated by coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery having at least 1 angiographically intermediate stenosis. In 429 patients, coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery was based solely on angiography (angiography-guided group). In 198 patients, at least 1 intermediate stenosis was Grafted with an FFR ≤0.80 or deferred with an FFR >0.80 (FFR-guided group). The end point was major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years, defined as the composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of angiographic multivessel disease was similar in the angiography-guided and FFR-guided groups (404 [94.2%] versus 186 [93.9%]; P=0.722). In the FFR-guided group, this was significan...
-
Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Circulation, 2013Co-Authors: Gabor G. Toth, Bernard De Bruyne, F. Casselman, Frederic De Vroey, Stylianos A. Pyxaras, Luigi Di Serafino, Frank Van Praet, Carlos Van Mieghem, Bernard Stockman, William WijnsAbstract:Background—Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is well established for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, yet little is known about candidates for coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery. Methods and Results—From 2006 to 2010, we retrospectively included in this registry 627 consecutive patients treated by coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery having at least 1 angiographically intermediate stenosis. In 429 patients, coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery was based solely on angiography (angiography-guided group). In 198 patients, at least 1 intermediate stenosis was Grafted with an FFR ≤0.80 or deferred with an FFR >0.80 (FFR-guided group). The end point was major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years, defined as the composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of angiographic multivessel disease was similar in the angiography-guided and FFR-guided groups (404 [94.2%] versus 186 [93.9%]; P=0.722). In the FFR-guided group, this was significan...
Frank Van Praet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fractional flow reserve guided versus angiography guided coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery
Circulation, 2013Co-Authors: Gabor G. Toth, Bernard De Bruyne, F. Casselman, Frederic De Vroey, Stylianos A. Pyxaras, Luigi Di Serafino, Frank Van Praet, Carlos Van Mieghem, Bernard Stockman, William WijnsAbstract:Background—Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is well established for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, yet little is known about candidates for coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery. Methods and Results—From 2006 to 2010, we retrospectively included in this registry 627 consecutive patients treated by coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery having at least 1 angiographically intermediate stenosis. In 429 patients, coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery was based solely on angiography (angiography-guided group). In 198 patients, at least 1 intermediate stenosis was Grafted with an FFR ≤0.80 or deferred with an FFR >0.80 (FFR-guided group). The end point was major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years, defined as the composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of angiographic multivessel disease was similar in the angiography-guided and FFR-guided groups (404 [94.2%] versus 186 [93.9%]; P=0.722). In the FFR-guided group, this was significan...
-
Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Circulation, 2013Co-Authors: Gabor G. Toth, Bernard De Bruyne, F. Casselman, Frederic De Vroey, Stylianos A. Pyxaras, Luigi Di Serafino, Frank Van Praet, Carlos Van Mieghem, Bernard Stockman, William WijnsAbstract:Background—Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is well established for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, yet little is known about candidates for coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery. Methods and Results—From 2006 to 2010, we retrospectively included in this registry 627 consecutive patients treated by coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery having at least 1 angiographically intermediate stenosis. In 429 patients, coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery was based solely on angiography (angiography-guided group). In 198 patients, at least 1 intermediate stenosis was Grafted with an FFR ≤0.80 or deferred with an FFR >0.80 (FFR-guided group). The end point was major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years, defined as the composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of angiographic multivessel disease was similar in the angiography-guided and FFR-guided groups (404 [94.2%] versus 186 [93.9%]; P=0.722). In the FFR-guided group, this was significan...
Bernard De Bruyne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fractional flow reserve guided versus angiography guided coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery
Circulation, 2013Co-Authors: Gabor G. Toth, Bernard De Bruyne, F. Casselman, Frederic De Vroey, Stylianos A. Pyxaras, Luigi Di Serafino, Frank Van Praet, Carlos Van Mieghem, Bernard Stockman, William WijnsAbstract:Background—Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is well established for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, yet little is known about candidates for coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery. Methods and Results—From 2006 to 2010, we retrospectively included in this registry 627 consecutive patients treated by coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery having at least 1 angiographically intermediate stenosis. In 429 patients, coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery was based solely on angiography (angiography-guided group). In 198 patients, at least 1 intermediate stenosis was Grafted with an FFR ≤0.80 or deferred with an FFR >0.80 (FFR-guided group). The end point was major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years, defined as the composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of angiographic multivessel disease was similar in the angiography-guided and FFR-guided groups (404 [94.2%] versus 186 [93.9%]; P=0.722). In the FFR-guided group, this was significan...
-
Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Circulation, 2013Co-Authors: Gabor G. Toth, Bernard De Bruyne, F. Casselman, Frederic De Vroey, Stylianos A. Pyxaras, Luigi Di Serafino, Frank Van Praet, Carlos Van Mieghem, Bernard Stockman, William WijnsAbstract:Background—Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is well established for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, yet little is known about candidates for coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery. Methods and Results—From 2006 to 2010, we retrospectively included in this registry 627 consecutive patients treated by coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery having at least 1 angiographically intermediate stenosis. In 429 patients, coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery was based solely on angiography (angiography-guided group). In 198 patients, at least 1 intermediate stenosis was Grafted with an FFR ≤0.80 or deferred with an FFR >0.80 (FFR-guided group). The end point was major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years, defined as the composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of angiographic multivessel disease was similar in the angiography-guided and FFR-guided groups (404 [94.2%] versus 186 [93.9%]; P=0.722). In the FFR-guided group, this was significan...
