Ulrich Speck

Bio: Ulrich Speck is an academic researcher from Charité. The author has contributed to research in topics: Restenosis & Angioplasty. The author has an hindex of 20, co-authored 72 publications receiving 3943 citations. Previous affiliations of Ulrich Speck include Schering AG.

Local delivery of paclitaxel to inhibit restenosis during angioplasty of the leg.

Abstract: A b s t r ac t BACKGROUND Drug-eluting stents reduce restenosis in coronary arteries, but clinical trials have failed to prove their efficacy in peripheral arteries. We investigated the use of paclitaxel-coated angioplasty balloons and paclitaxel dissolved in the angiographic contrast medium during angioplasty of the leg. METHODS In a small, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 154 patients with stenosis or occlusion of a femoropopliteal artery to treatment with standard balloon catheters coated with paclitaxel, uncoated balloons with paclitaxel dissolved in the contrast medium, or uncoated balloons without paclitaxel (control). The primary end point was late lumen loss at 6 months. RESULTS The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 68±8 years, 24% were smokers, and 49% had diabetes. Twenty-seven percent of the lesions were total occlusions, and 36% were restenotic lesions. The mean lesion length was 7.4±6.5 cm. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. There were no adverse events attributable to the paclitaxel-coated balloons. At 6 months, the mean late lumen loss was 1.7±1.8 mm in the control group, as compared with 0.4±1.2 mm (P<0.001) in the group treated with paclitaxel-coated balloons and 2.2±1.6 mm (P = 0.11) in the group treated with paclitaxel in the contrast medium. The rate of revascularization of target lesions at 6 months was 20 of 54 (37%) in the control group, 2 of 48 (4%) in the group treated with paclitaxel-coated balloons (P<0.001 vs. control), and 15 of 52 (29%) in the group treated with paclitaxel in the contrast medium (P = 0.41 vs. control); at 24 months, the rates increased to 28 of 54 (52%), 7 of 48 (15%), and 21 of 52 (40%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Use of paclitaxel-coated angioplasty balloons during percutaneous treatment of femoropopliteal disease is associated with significant reductions in late lumen loss and target-lesion revascularization. No significant benefit is seen with the use of a paclitaxel-containing contrast medium. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00156624.)

Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter.

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=...

Inhibition of restenosis in femoropopliteal arteries: paclitaxel-coated versus uncoated balloon: femoral paclitaxel randomized pilot trial.

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...

Paclitaxel balloon coating, a novel method for prevention and therapy of restenosis.

Abstract: Background— Drug-eluting stents have shown promising antirestenotic effects in clinical trials. Non–stent-based local delivery of antiproliferative drugs may offer additional flexibility and also r...

Two year follow-up after treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter

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.

2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI).

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

Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

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 …

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

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

Guidelines on myocardial revascularization.

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.