Advertisement

Cutting Balloon Angioplasty

  • Verghese Mathew
  • Anoop Chauhan
Chapter

Abstract

Conventional balloon angioplasty restores coronary blood flow at the expense of some degree of arterial wall injury. The occurrence and degree of vessel wall injury is unpredictable and, in a proportion of cases, results in the complications associated with conventional percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Cutting balloon technology has evolved over nearly a decade. Although initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000, the cutting balloon has had a rather modest rate of incorporation into interventional practice in the United States. Nonetheless, the cutting balloon may be useful in certain lesion subsets that respond poorly to conventional PTCA and are also not ideal for stenting.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chen W, Hayashi A, Kamimura K, et al.: Effect of multiple inflations in cutting balloon angioplasty: comparison with single inflation. Jpn J Circ 1997, 61(suppl):432.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kastrati A, Schomig A, Dirschinger J, et al.: A randomized trial comparing stenting with balloon angioplasty in small vessels in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease. Circulation 2000, 102:2593–2598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koning R, Eltchaninoff H, Commeau P, et al.: Stent placement compared with balloon angioplasty for small coronary arteries. In-hospital and 6-month clinical and angiographic results. Circulation 2001, 104:1604–1608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Savage MP, Fischman DL, Rake R, et al.: Efficacy of coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty in small coronary arteries.J Am Coll Cardiol 1998, 31:307–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doucet S, Schalij MJ, Vrolix MCM, et al.: Stent placement to prevent restenosis after angioplasty in small coronary arteries. Circulation 2001, 104:2029–2033.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garcia et al.: Paper presented at Transcatheter Therapeutics (TCT), 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park SW, Lee CW, Hong MK, et al.: Randomized comparison of coronary stenting with optimal balloon angioplasty for treatment of lesions in small coronary arteries. Eur Heart J 2000, 21:1785–1789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miketic S, Carlsson J, Tebbe U: Clinical and angiographic outcome of NIR stent implantation in small vessels with unfavorable lesion morphology. Invasive Cardiol 1999, 11:269–273.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ergene O, Seyithanoglu Y, Tastan A, et al.: Comparison of angiographic and clinical outcome after cutting balloon and conventional balloon angioplasty in vessels smaller than 3 mm in diameter: a randomized trial.J Invasive Cardiol 1998, 10:70–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muramatsu T, Tsukahara R, Ho M, et al.: Efficacy of cutting balloon angioplasty for lesions at the ostium of the coronary arteries.J Invasive Cardiol 1999, 11:201–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inoue T, Hoshi K, Yaguchi I, et al.: Cutting balloon angioplasty for ostial lesions of the left anterior descending artery.J Interv Cardiol 2000, 13:7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Takebayashi H, Osada S, Kouno H, et al.: Effect of cutting balloon angioplasty for bifurcational lesion comparison with kissing balloon. Jpn J Interv Cardiol 2000;15 suppl(0866).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Verghese Mathew
  • Anoop Chauhan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations