prikaz prve stranice dokumenta Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Feasibility Study
Access restricted to students and staff of home institution
Scientific paper - Original scientific paper
Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Feasibility Study
The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 354 (2017), 6; 553-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2017.07.005
Gobić, David; Tomulić, Vjekoslav; Lulić, Davorka; Židan, David; Brusich, Sandro; Jakljević, Tomislav; Zaputović, Luka

Cite this document

Gobić, D., Tomulić, V., Lulić, D., Židan, D., Brusich, S., Jakljević, T. & Zaputović, L. (2017). Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Feasibility Study. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 354. (6), 553-560. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2017.07.005

Gobić, David, et al. "Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Feasibility Study." The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, vol. 354, no. 6, 2017, pp. 553-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2017.07.005

Gobić, David, Vjekoslav Tomulić, Davorka Lulić, David Židan, Sandro Brusich, Tomislav Jakljević and Luka Zaputović. "Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Feasibility Study." The American Journal of the Medical Sciences 354, no. 6 (2017): 553-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2017.07.005

Gobić, D., et al. (2017) 'Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Feasibility Study', The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 354(6), pp. 553-560. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2017.07.005

Gobić D, Tomulić V, Lulić D, Židan D, Brusich S, Jakljević T, and sur.. Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Feasibility Study. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2024 June 24];354(6):553-560. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2017.07.005

D. Gobić, et al., "Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Feasibility Study", The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, vol. 354, no. 6, pp. 553-560, 2017. [Online]. Available at: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:184:223109. [Accessed: 24 June 2024]

Please login to the repository to save this object to your list.
Metadata
Title (english)Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Feasibility Study
AuthorDavid Gobić
AuthorVjekoslav Tomulić
AuthorDavorka Lulić
AuthorDavid Židan
AuthorSandro Brusich
AuthorTomislav Jakljević
AuthorLuka Zaputović
Author's institutionUniversity of Rijeka
Faculty of Medicine
(Department of Internal Medicine)
Scientific / art field,
discipline and subdiscipline		BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTHCARE
Clinical Medical Sciences
Internal Medicine
Abstract (english)
Drug-eluting stents (DES) represent a significant evolution in the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction with ST elevation. However, stent-related adverse events have led to an introduction of drug-coated balloons (DCB) applied particularly to bifurcation lesions, in-stent restenosis and small vessel disease. The aim of this study was to determine whether DCB-only strategy has a similar safety profile and equal angiographic and clinical outcomes to DES implantation in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Seventy-five STEMI patients were randomized into DES and DCB groups of 37 and 38 patients, respectively. The study end-points were major adverse cardiac events and the late lumen loss during the 6 months following the pPCI. Reinfarction occurred in 5.4% of patients in the DES and 5.3% of patients in the DCB group after 1 month (risk ratio = 1.03, 95% CI [0.15-6.91], P = 0.98). After 6 months, major adverse cardiac events were reported in 5.4% of patients in the DES group and none in the DCB group (risk ratio = 5.13, 95% CI [0.25-103.42], P = 0.29). Late lumen loss in the DES group was 0.10 ± 0.19 mm and −0.09 ± 0.09 mm in the DCB group (P < 0.05). A DCB-only strategy is safe and feasible in the pPCI setting, and showed good clinical and angiographic outcomes in 6 months follow-up period.
Keywords (english)
Languageenglish
Publication typeScientific paper - Original scientific paper
Publication statusPublished
Peer reviewPeer review - international
Publication versionPublished version
Journal titleThe American Journal of the Medical Sciences
Numberingvol. 354, no. 6, pp. 553-560
p-ISSN0002-9629
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2017.07.005
URN:NBNurn:nbn:hr:184:223109
Publication2017
Document URLhttp://bib.irb.hr/899139
Type of resourceText
Access conditionsInstitutional access
Terms of useLicence In copyright icon
Created on2022-02-17 09:51:02