Your reference journal for coronary, valvular and structural interventions

issue

Dec 4, 2020

Volume 16 Number 11

An EAPCI consensus document on patient-oriented management of myocardial revascularisation failure; the retrograde vs antegrade approach from the PROGRESS-CTO Registry; the PIONEER trial studying the BuMA Supreme SES. A mini focus on BRS, with: a sub-analysis of the AIDA trial studying BRS and the impact of the complexity of CAD stratified by the SYNTAX score; magnesium-based BRS in the MAGSTEMI trial; BRS implantation as a putative way to lower the incidence of neoatherosclerosis; BRS design and arterial haemodynamics; five-year clinical outcomes from the ABSORB II trial. Effectiveness of a new generation of LAA closure occluders; embolic protection devices for carotid stenting, and more…

In this issue of EuroIntervention

EAPCI consensus document on myocardial revascularisation failure; antegrade versus retrograde approach from the PROGRESS-CTO Registry; a mini focus on BRS with lessons from the AIDA, ABSORB II and MAGSTEMI trials; LAA closure occluders, new embolic protection devices and more…

Capodanno D

free

Coronary interventions

Management of myocardial revascularisation failure: an expert consensus document of the EAPCI

Stefanini G, Alfonso F, Barbato E, Byrne RA, Capodanno D, Colleran R, Escaned J, Giacoppo D, Kunadian V, Lansky AJ, Mehilli J, Neumann F, Regazzoli D, Sanchez J, Wijns W, Baumbach A

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00487

free

Editorial comment

Repeat revascularisation: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”

Levine G, Denktas A

10.4244/EIJV16I11A160

free

Technical and procedural outcomes of the retrograde approach to chronic total occlusion interventions

Tajti P, Xenogiannis I, Gargoulas F, Karmpaliotis D, Alaswad K, Jaffer F, Patel M, Burke MN, Garcia S, Krestyaninov O, Koutouzis M, Jaber W, Brilakis E

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00441

free

Editorial comment

The retrograde approach for recanalisation of chronic total occlusions – a risk worth taking?

Werner G

10.4244/EIJV16I11A161

free

BuMA Supreme biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus a durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent: three-year clinical outcomes of the PIONEER trial

Chang C, Kogame N, Asano T, von Birgelen C, Sabaté M, Onuma Y, Serruys PW

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00566

free

Coronary interventions - Mini focus on bioresorbable scaffolds

Outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents by coronary complexity: a sub-analysis of the AIDA trial

Kraak R, Tijssen R, van Dongen I, Elias J, Hofma S, van der Schaaf R, Arkenbout EK, Weevers A, Tijssen J, Piek J, de Winter R, Henriques J, Wykrzykowska JJ

10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00884

free

Bioresorbable scaffolds versus permanent sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: vascular healing outcomes from the MAGSTEMI trial

Gomez-Lara J, Ortega-Paz L, Brugaletta S, Cuesta J, Romaní S, Serra A, Salinas P, García del Blanco B, Goicolea J, Hernández-Antolín R, Antuña P, Romaguera R, Regueiro A, Rivero F, Cequier A, Alfonso F, Gómez-Hospital JA, Sabaté M

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00198

free

Editorial comment

Magnesium-based bioresorbable scaffolds in STEMI. The quest for the optimal bioresorption balance

Gonzalo N, McInerney A

10.4244/EIJV16I11A162

free

Preclinical investigation of neoatherosclerosis in magnesium-based bioresorbable scaffolds versus thick-strut drug-eluting stents

Nicol P, Bulin A, Castellanos M, Stöger M, Obermeier S, Lewerich J, Lenz T, Hoppmann P, Baumgartner C, Fischer J, Steiger K, Haude M, Joner M

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00747

free

Impact of bioresorbable scaffold design characteristics on local haemodynamic forces: an ex vivo assessment with computational fluid dynamics simulations

Tarrahi I, Colombo M, Hartman E, Tovar Forero M, Torii R, Chiastra C, Daemen J, Gijsen F

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00657

free

Bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: five-year clinical outcomes of the randomised ABSORB II trial

Onuma Y, Chevalier B, Ono M, Cequier A, Dudek D, Haude M, Carrié D, Sabaté M, Windecker S, Rapoza R, West N, Reith S, de Sousa Almeida M, Campo G, Iñiguez A, Serruys PW

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00024

free

Interventions for hypertension and stroke

WATCHMAN versus ACP or Amulet devices for left atrial appendage occlusion: a sub-analysis of the multicentre LAARGE registry

Ledwoch J, Franke J, Akin I, Geist V, Weiß C, Zeymer U, Pleger S, Hochadel M, Mudra H, Senges J, Lewalter T, Brachmann J, Sievert H

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-01027

free

Editorial comment

WATCHMAN versus AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug: which will prevail?

Saw J, Inohara T

10.4244/EIJV16I11A163

free

Peripheral interventions

MicroNET-covered stents for embolic prevention in patients undergoing carotid revascularisation: twelve-month outcomes from the PARADIGM study

Mazurek A, Borratynska A, Malinowski K, Brozda M, Gancarczyk U, Dluzniewska N, Czyz L, Duplicka M, Sobieraj E, Trystula M, Drazkiewicz T, Podolec P, Musialek P

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-01014

free