Author
Daniel J. Diver
Other affiliations: Georgetown University
Bio: Daniel J. Diver is an academic researcher from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Stent & Restenosis. The author has an hindex of 15, co-authored 15 publications receiving 3799 citations. Previous affiliations of Daniel J. Diver include Georgetown University.
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: This study compared the efficacy and safety of three antithrombotic-drug regimens — aspirin alone, aspirin and warfarin, and aspirin and ticlopidine — after coronary stenting to prevent stent thrombosis.
Abstract: Background Antithrombotic drugs are used after coronary-artery stenting to prevent stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of three antithrombotic-drug regimens — aspirin alone, aspirin and warfarin, and aspirin and ticlopidine — after coronary stenting. Methods Of 1965 patients who underwent coronary stenting at 50 centers, 1653 (84.1 percent) met angiographic criteria for successful placement of the stent and were randomly assigned to one of three regimens: aspirin alone (557 patients), aspirin and warfarin (550 patients), or aspirin and ticlopidine (546 patients). All clinical events reflecting stent thrombosis were included in the prespecified primary end point: death, revascularization of the target lesion, angiographically evident thrombosis, or myocardial infarction within 30 days. Results The primary end point was observed in 38 patients: 20 (3.6 percent) assigned to receive aspirin alone, 15 (2.7 percent) assigned to receive aspirin and warfarin, and 3 (0.5 percent) assigned to rece...
1,672 citations
TL;DR: Treatment with aspirin and ticlopidine after coronary stenting resulted in a lower rate of stent thrombosis, although there were more hemorrhagic complications than with aspirin alone.
Abstract: Background Antithrombotic drugs are used after coronary-artery stenting to prevent stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of three antithrombotic-drug regimens — aspirin alone, aspirin and warfarin, and aspirin and ticlopidine — after coronary stenting. Methods Of 1965 patients who underwent coronary stenting at 50 centers, 1653 (84.1 percent) met angiographic criteria for successful placement of the stent and were randomly assigned to one of three regimens: aspirin alone (557 patients), aspirin and warfarin (550 patients), or aspirin and ticlopidine (546 patients). All clinical events reflecting stent thrombosis were included in the prespecified primary end point: death, revascularization of the target lesion, angiographically evident thrombosis, or myocardial infarction within 30 days. Results The primary end point was observed in 38 patients: 20 (3.6 percent) assigned to receive aspirin alone, 15 (2.7 percent) assigned to receive aspirin and warfarin, and 3 (0.5 percent) assigned to rece...
567 citations
Stanford University1, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio2, Harvard University3, Yale University4, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital5, Georgetown University6, MedStar Washington Hospital Center7, Lenox Hill Hospital8, University of Florida9, Beaumont Hospital10, Maimonides Medical Center11, University of Texas at Austin12, Scripps Health13, Duke University14
TL;DR: The CRUISE (Can Routine Ultrasound Influence Stent Expansion) study, a multicenter study IVUS substudy of the Stent Anti-thrombotic Regimen Study, was designed to assess the impact of IVUS on stent deployment in the high-pressure era.
Abstract: Background—Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can assess stent geometry more accurately than angiography. Several studies have demonstrated that the degree of stent expansion as measured by IVUS directly correlated to clinical outcome. However, it is unclear if routine ultrasound guidance of stent implantation improves clinical outcome as compared with angiographic guidance alone. Methods and Results—The CRUISE (Can Routine Ultrasound Influence Stent Expansion) study, a multicenter study IVUS substudy of the Stent Anti-thrombotic Regimen Study, was designed to assess the impact of IVUS on stent deployment in the high-pressure era. Nine centers were prospectively assigned to stent deployment with the use of ultrasound guidance and 7 centers to angiographic guidance alone with documentary (blinded) IVUS at the conclusion of the procedure. A total of 525 patients were enrolled with completed quantitative coronary angiography, quantitative coronary ultrasound, and clinical events adjudicated at 9 months for 499 ...
355 citations
Brigham and Women's Hospital1, University of Alabama at Birmingham2, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center3, Halifax4, University of Chicago5, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill6, University of Virginia7, University of Texas Medical Branch8, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston9
TL;DR: The admission ECG is very useful in risk stratifying patients with non-Q wave MI, whereas T wave inversion does not add to the clinical history in predicting outcome.
353 citations
TL;DR: Palaz-Schatz stents can be placed successfully with a low incidence of major complications and 70% of patients remained free of cardiovascular events at 3 years, according to the angiographic restenosis rate.
306 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: The once-in-a-lifetime treatment with Abciximab Intracoronary for acute coronary syndrome and a second dose intravenously for atrial fibrillation is recommended for adults with high blood pressure.
Abstract: ACE
: angiotensin-converting enzyme
ACS
: acute coronary syndrome
ADP
: adenosine diphosphate
AF
: atrial fibrillation
AMI
: acute myocardial infarction
AV
: atrioventricular
AIDA-4
: Abciximab Intracoronary vs. intravenously Drug Application
APACHE II
: Acute Physiology Aand Chronic
7,519 citations
TL;DR: The present guidelines supersede the 1994 guidelines and summarize both the evidence and expert opinion and provide final recommendations for both patient evaluation and therapy.
Abstract: The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to make recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Unstable angina (UA) and the closely related condition non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are very common manifestations of this disease. These life-threatening disorders are a major cause of emergency medical care and hospitalizations in the United States. In 1996, the National Center for Health Statistics reported 1 433 000 hospitalizations for UA or NSTEMI. In recognition of the importance of the management of this common entity and of the rapid advances in the management of this condition, the need to revise guidelines published by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in 1994 was evident. This Task Force therefore formed the current committee to develop guidelines for the management of UA and NSTEMI. The present guidelines supersede the 1994 guidelines.
The customary ACC/AHA classifications I, II, and III summarize both the evidence and expert opinion and provide final recommendations for both patient evaluation and therapy:
Class I: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure or treatment is useful and effective .
Class II: Conditions for which there is conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of a procedure or treatment.
Class IIa: Weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of usefulness/efficacy.
Class IIb: Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion.
Class III: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that the procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful.
The weight of the evidence was ranked highest (A) if the data …
5,020 citations
TL;DR: Criteria for assessment of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis were developed and provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices.
Abstract: Background— Although most clinical trials of coronary stents have measured nominally identical safety and effectiveness end points, differences in definitions and timing of assessment have created confusion in interpretation. Methods and Results— The Academic Research Consortium is an informal collaboration between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe. Two meetings, in Washington, DC, in January 2006 and in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2006, sponsored by the Academic Research Consortium and including representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and all device manufacturers who were working with the Food and Drug Administration on drug-eluting stent clinical trial programs, were focused on consensus end point definitions for drug-eluting stent evaluations. The effort was pursued with the objective to establish consistency among end point definitions and provide consensus recommendations. On the basis of considerations from historical legacy to key pathophysiological mechani...
4,994 citations
TL;DR: As compared with a standard coronary stent, a sirolimus-eluting stent shows considerable promise for the prevention of neointimal proliferation, restenosis, and associated clinical events.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The need for repeated treatment of restenosis of a treated vessel remains the main limitation of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Because sirolimus (rapamycin) inhibits the proliferation of lymphocytes and smooth-muscle cells, we compared a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard uncoated stent in patients with angina pectoris. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind trial to compare the two types of stents for revascularization of single, primary lesions in native coronary arteries. The trial included 238 patients at 19 medical centers. The primary end point was in-stent late luminal loss (the difference between the minimal luminal diameter immediately after the procedure and the diameter at six months). Secondary end points included the percentage of in-stent stenosis of the luminal diameter and the rate of restenosis (luminal narrowing of 50 percent or more). We also analyzed a composite clinical end point consisting of death, myocardial infarction, and percutaneous or surgical revascularization at 1, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: At six months, the degree of neointimal proliferation, manifested as the mean (+/-SD) late luminal loss, was significantly lower in the sirolimus-stent group (-0.01+/-0.33 mm) than in the standard-stent group (0.80+/-0.53 mm, P<0.001). None of the patients in the sirolimus-stent group, as compared with 26.6 percent of those in the standard-stent group, had restenosis of 50 percent or more of the luminal diameter (P<0.001). There were no episodes of stent thrombosis. During a follow-up period of up to one year, the overall rate of major cardiac events was 5.8 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 28.8 percent in the standard-stent group (P<0.001). The difference was due entirely to a higher rate of revascularization of the target vessel in the standard-stent group. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a standard coronary stent, a sirolimus-eluting stent shows considerable promise for the prevention of neointimal proliferation, restenosis, and associated clinical events.
4,051 citations
TL;DR: Neumann et al. as discussed by the authors proposed a task force to evaluate the EACTS Review Co-ordinator's work on gender equality in the context of women's reproductive health.
Abstract: Authors/Task Force Members: Franz-Josef Neumann* (ESC Chairperson) (Germany), Miguel Sousa-Uva* (EACTS Chairperson) (Portugal), Anders Ahlsson (Sweden), Fernando Alfonso (Spain), Adrian P. Banning (UK), Umberto Benedetto (UK), Robert A. Byrne (Germany), Jean-Philippe Collet (France), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Stuart J. Head (The Netherlands), Peter Jüni (Canada), Adnan Kastrati (Germany), Akos Koller (Hungary), Steen D. Kristensen (Denmark), Josef Niebauer (Austria), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Petar M. Seferovi c (Serbia), Dirk Sibbing (Germany), Giulio G. Stefanini (Italy), Stephan Windecker (Switzerland), Rashmi Yadav (UK), Michael O. Zembala (Poland) Document Reviewers: William Wijns (ESC Review Co-ordinator) (Ireland), David Glineur (EACTS Review Co-ordinator) (Canada), Victor Aboyans (France), Stephan Achenbach (Germany), Stefan Agewall (Norway), Felicita Andreotti (Italy), Emanuele Barbato (Italy), Andreas Baumbach (UK), James Brophy (Canada), Héctor Bueno (Spain), Patrick A. Calvert (UK), Davide Capodanno (Italy), Piroze M. Davierwala
3,879 citations