Ed. Demuinck et al., AUTOPERFUSION BALLOON VERSUS STENT FOR ACUTE OR THREATENED CLOSURE DURING PERCUTANEOUS TRANSLUMINAL CORONARY ANGIOPLASTY, The American journal of cardiology, 74(10), 1994, pp. 1002-1005
Efficacy and major clinical end points were compared in 61 patients tr
eated with a Stack autoperfusion balloon versus 36 patients who receiv
ed a Palmaz-Schatz stent for acute or threatened closure during corona
ry angioplasty. The groups were comparable regarding baseline clinical
characteristics. Procedural success was achieved in 43 patients (70%)
treated with an autoperfusion balloon versus 34 patients (94%) who re
ceived a stent (p <0.02). Emergency bypass surgery was performed in 13
patients (21%) with the autoperfusion balloon versus none of the pati
ents with a stent (p <0.001). in the stent group; 3 patients (8%) died
(p <0.05); 2 deaths were caused by thrombotic reclosure, and 1 patien
t died after unsuccessful stent delivery. Subacute reclosure during ho
spitalization occurred in none of the patients with autoperfusion vers
us 8 patients with the stent (22%) (p <0.0002). Therefore, the number
of patients with successful stent implantation at discharge decreased
to 26 (72%). At 3-month follow-up in all patients;with a successful in
tervention, reclosure or angiographic restenosis (>50%) occurred in 13
patients with autoperfusion (30%) versus 3 patients with stents (12%)
(p = NS). There was no difference in event-free survival during follo
w-up. Thus, both interventions were equally successful in the treatmen
t of acute and threatened closure. More emergency surgery was performe
d in the autoperfusion balloon group, whereas a higher subacute reclos
ure rate was seen in the stent group. At 3-month follow-up, there were
no significant differences regarding reclosure, restenosis, and event
-free survival.