TY - JOUR
T1 - Total occlusion trial with angioplasty by using laser guidewire
T2 - The Total trial
AU - Serruys, P. W.
AU - Hamburger, J. N.
AU - Koolen, J. J.
AU - Fajadet, J.
AU - Haude, M.
AU - Klues, H.
AU - Seabra-Gomes, R.
AU - Corcos, T.
AU - Hamm, C.
AU - Pizzuli, L.
AU - Meier, B.
AU - Mathey, D.
AU - Fleck, E.
AU - Taeymans, Y.
AU - Melkert, R.
AU - Teunissen, Y.
AU - Simon, R.
PY - 2000
Y1 - 2000
N2 - Aims: A randomized trial was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of a laser guidewire, in the treatment of chronic coronary occlusions. Methods and Results: In 18 European centres, 303 patients with a chronic coronary occlusion were randomized to treatment with either the laser guidewire (n=144) or conventional guidewires (mechanical guidewire, n=159). The primary end-point of the study was treatment success, defined as reaching the true lumen distal to the occlusion by the allocated wire within 30 min of fluoroscopic time: laser guidewire vs mechanical guidewire; 52.8% (n=76) vs 47.2% (n=75), P=0.33. Serious adverse events following the initial guidewire attempt were 0% (laser guidewire) and 0.6% (mechanical guidewire), respectively. Angioplasty (performed following successful guidewire crossing) was successful in 179 patients (91%, laser guidewire n=79, mechanical guidewire n=100), followed by stent implantation in 149 (79%). At the 6-month angiographic follow-up, the difference in binary restenosis rate (laser guidewire vs mechanical guidewire; 45.5% vs 38.3%, P=0.72) or reocclusion rate (25.8% vs 16.1%, P=0.15) did not reach statistical significance. At 1, 6 and 12 months, angina and event-free survival were 69%, 35% and 24% (laser guidewire) vs 74%, 40% and 31% (mechanical guidewire). Conclusion: Although laser guidewire technology was safe, the increase in crossing success did not reach statistical significance. (C) 2000 The European Society of Cardiology.
AB - Aims: A randomized trial was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of a laser guidewire, in the treatment of chronic coronary occlusions. Methods and Results: In 18 European centres, 303 patients with a chronic coronary occlusion were randomized to treatment with either the laser guidewire (n=144) or conventional guidewires (mechanical guidewire, n=159). The primary end-point of the study was treatment success, defined as reaching the true lumen distal to the occlusion by the allocated wire within 30 min of fluoroscopic time: laser guidewire vs mechanical guidewire; 52.8% (n=76) vs 47.2% (n=75), P=0.33. Serious adverse events following the initial guidewire attempt were 0% (laser guidewire) and 0.6% (mechanical guidewire), respectively. Angioplasty (performed following successful guidewire crossing) was successful in 179 patients (91%, laser guidewire n=79, mechanical guidewire n=100), followed by stent implantation in 149 (79%). At the 6-month angiographic follow-up, the difference in binary restenosis rate (laser guidewire vs mechanical guidewire; 45.5% vs 38.3%, P=0.72) or reocclusion rate (25.8% vs 16.1%, P=0.15) did not reach statistical significance. At 1, 6 and 12 months, angina and event-free survival were 69%, 35% and 24% (laser guidewire) vs 74%, 40% and 31% (mechanical guidewire). Conclusion: Although laser guidewire technology was safe, the increase in crossing success did not reach statistical significance. (C) 2000 The European Society of Cardiology.
KW - Chronic total coronary occlusion
KW - Laser angioplasty
KW - Randomized trial
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/0033767442
U2 - 10.1053/euhj.2000.2263
DO - 10.1053/euhj.2000.2263
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0033767442
SN - 0195-668X
VL - 21
SP - 1797
EP - 1805
JO - European Heart Journal
JF - European Heart Journal
IS - 21
ER -