Author
Ulrich Dietz
Bio: Ulrich Dietz is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Restenosis & Angioplasty. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 8 publications receiving 1877 citations.
Topics: Restenosis, Angioplasty, Balloon catheter, Balloon, Stent
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial to compare the effects of a balloon catheter coated with paclitaxel (3 μg per square millimeter of balloon surface area) with those of an uncoated balloons catheter in coronary angioplasty found no significant differences.
Abstract: Background Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis is hampered by a high incidence of recurrent in-stent restenosis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-coated balloon in this setting. Methods We enrolled 52 patients with in-stent restenosis in a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial to compare the effects of a balloon catheter coated with paclitaxel (3 μg per square millimeter of balloon surface area) with those of an uncoated balloon catheter in coronary angioplasty. The primary end point was late luminal loss as seen on angiography. Secondary end points included the rates of restenosis (a binary variable) and major adverse cardiac events. Results Multivessel disease was present in 80% of patients in both groups. Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no significant differences in baseline measures. At 6 months, angiography showed that the mean (±SD) in-segment late luminal loss was 0.74±0.86 mm in the uncoated-balloon group versus 0.03±0.48 mm in the coated-balloon group (P=...
679 citations
TL;DR: Paclitaxel balloon coating caused no obvious adverse events and reduced restenosis in patients undergoing angioplasty of femoropopliteal arteries and the difference in target lesion revascularizations between treatment groups was maintained up to >18 months.
Abstract: Background— The success of percutaneous intervention in peripheral arterial disease is limited by restenosis. The aim of the present pilot study was to evaluate a novel method of local drug delivery. Methods and Results— This randomized multicenter study with blinded reading enrolled 87 patients in Rutherford class 1 to 4 with occlusion or hemodynamically relevant stenosis, restenosis, or in-stent restenosis of femoropopliteal arteries. Treatment was performed by either conventional uncoated or paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters. The primary end point was late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary end points included restenosis rate, ankle brachial index, Rutherford class, target lesion revascularization, and tolerance up to >18 months. Before intervention, there were no significant differences in lesion characteristics such as reference diameter (5.3±1.1 versus 5.2±1.0 mm), degree of stenosis (84±11% versus 84±16%), proportion of restenotic lesions (36% versus 33%), and mean lesion length (5.7 cm [0.8 to 22...
490 citations
TL;DR: A drug-eluting balloon (DEB) based on a novel coating was compared with a conventional balloon in this paper, where the DEB was used for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty.
Abstract: Background—Peripheral percutaneous transluminal angioplasty is fraught with a substantial risk of restenosis and reintervention. A drug-eluting balloon (DEB) based on a novel coating was compared w...
312 citations
TL;DR: Treatment of coronary ISR with paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters persistently reduces repeat restenosis up to 2 years and after a complete follow-up of 2 years.
Abstract: Background
We are presenting an extension of a previously published trial on the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-coated balloon in coronary ISR in a larger patient population and after a complete follow-up of 2 years.
249 citations
TL;DR: Treatment of coronary ISR with paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters is safe and persistently reduces repeat revascularization during long-term follow-up.
Abstract: Objectives: This study presents long-term clinical follow-up, including binary restenosis rate and major adverse cardiovascular events, of the PACCOCATH-ISR (Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis by Pac...
199 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: Authors/Task Force Members: Franz-Josef Neumann* (ESC Chairperson) (Germany), Miguel Sousa-Uva* (EACTS Chair person) (Portugal), Anders Ahlsson (Sweden), Fernando Alfonso (Spain), Adrian P. Banning (UK), Umberto Benedetto (UK).
4,342 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
TL;DR: Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents summarize and evaluate all available evidence to assist physicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient suffering from a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome and the risk–benefit ratio of diagnostic or therapeutic means.
Abstract: Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents summarize and evaluate all available evidence with the aim of assisting physicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient suffering from a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome and the risk–benefit ratio of diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no substitutes for textbooks and their legal implications have been discussed previously. Guidelines and recommendations should help physicians to make decisions in their daily practice. However, the ultimate judgement regarding the care of an individual patient must be made by his/her responsible physician(s).
The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents can be found on the ESC website (http://www.escardio.org/knowledge/guidelines/rules).
Members of this Task Force were selected by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) to represent all physicians involved with the medical and surgical care of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is performed including assessment of the risk–benefit ratio. Estimates of expected health outcomes for society are included, where data exist. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendation of particular treatment options are weighed and graded according to predefined scales, as outlined in Tables 1 and 2 .
View this table:
Table 1
Classes of recommendations
View this table:
Table 2
Levels of evidence
The members of the Task Force have provided disclosure statements of all relationships that might be perceived as real or potential sources of conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. Any changes in conflict of interest that arose during the writing period were notified to the ESC. The Task Force report received its entire financial support from the ESC and EACTS, without any involvement of the pharmaceutical, device, or surgical industry.
ESC …
3,302 citations
TL;DR: 2017 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) as mentioned in this paper, covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries
Abstract: 2017 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) : Document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries
1,754 citations
TL;DR: Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents summarize and evaluate all available evidence with the aim of assisting physicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient suffering from a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome and the risk benefit ratio of diagnostic or therapeutic means.
Abstract: Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents summarize and
evaluate all available evidence with the aim of assisting
physicians in selecting the best management strategy for an
individual patient suffering from a given condition, taking
into account the impact on outcome and the risk benefit
ratio of diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no
substitutes for textbooks and their legal implications have
been discussed previously. Guidelines and recommendations should help physicians to make decisions in their daily
practice. However, the ultimate judgement regarding the
care of an individual patient must be made by his/her
responsible physician(s).
The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC
Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents can be found
on the ESC website (http://www.escardio.org/knowledge/
guidelines/rules).
Members of this Task Force were selected by the European
Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for
Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) to represent all physicians
involved with the medical and surgical care of patients
with coronary artery disease (CAD). A critical evaluation
of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is performed
including assessment of the risk benefit ratio. Estimates
of expected health outcomes for society are included,
where data exist. The level of evidence and the strength
of recommendation of particular treatment options are
weighed and graded according to predefined scales, as
outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
The members of the Task Force have provided disclosure
statements of all relationships that might be perceived as
real or potential sources of conflicts of interest. These
disclosure forms are kept on file at European Heart House,
headquarters of the ESC. Any changes in conflict of interest
that arose during the writing period were notified to the ESC.
The Task Force report received its entire financial support
from the ESC and EACTS, without any involvement of the
pharmaceutical, device, or surgical industry.
ESC and EACTS Committees for Practice Guidelines are
responsible for the endorsement process of these joint
Guidelines. The finalized document has been approved by all
the experts involved in the Task Force, and was submitted to
outside specialists selected by both societies for review. The
document is revised, and finally approved by ESC and EACTS and subsequently published simultaneously in the European
Heart Journal and the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic
Surgery.
After publication, dissemination of the Guidelines is of
paramount importance. Pocket-sized versions and personal
digital assistant-downloadable versions are useful at the
point of care.
Some surveys have shown that the intended users are
sometimes unaware of the existence of guidelines, or simply
do not translate them into practice. Thus, implementation
programmes are needed because it has been shown that
the outcome of disease may be favourably influenced by the
thorough application of clinical recommendations.
1,544 citations