Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/20188
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMichalis, L. K.en
dc.contributor.authorStroumbis, C. S.en
dc.contributor.authorPappas, K.en
dc.contributor.authorSourla, E.en
dc.contributor.authorNiokou, D.en
dc.contributor.authorGoudevenos, J. A.en
dc.contributor.authorSiogas, C.en
dc.contributor.authorSideris, D. A.en
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-24T19:05:24Z-
dc.date.available2015-11-24T19:05:24Z-
dc.identifier.issn0195-668X-
dc.identifier.urihttps://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/20188-
dc.rightsDefault Licence-
dc.subject*Air Ambulancesen
dc.subjectAngina, Unstable/*drug therapy/*surgeryen
dc.subjectAngioplastyen
dc.subjectCoronary Artery Bypassen
dc.subjectFemaleen
dc.subjectGreeceen
dc.subjectHumansen
dc.subjectMaleen
dc.subject*Medically Underserved Areaen
dc.subjectMiddle Ageden
dc.subject*Myocardial Reperfusionen
dc.subjectPlatelet Aggregation Inhibitors/*therapeutic useen
dc.subjectProspective Studiesen
dc.subjectTreatment Outcomeen
dc.titleTreatment of refractory unstable angina in geographically isolated areas without cardiac surgery. Invasive versus conservative strategy (TRUCS study)en
heal.typejournalArticle-
heal.type.enJournal articleen
heal.type.elΆρθρο Περιοδικούel
heal.identifier.primary10.1053/euhj.2000.2397-
heal.identifier.secondaryhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11071801-
heal.identifier.secondaryhttp://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/23/1954.full.pdf-
heal.languageen-
heal.accesscampus-
heal.recordProviderΠανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Σχολή Επιστημών Υγείας. Τμήμα Ιατρικήςel
heal.publicationDate2000-
heal.abstractAIMS: We compared invasive (on-site coronary angioplasty or emergency air-ambulance transfer for bypass grafting surgery) vs conservative (persistent medical treatment) strategies in the management of refractory unstable angina in geographically isolated hospitals without cardiac surgical facilities. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and forty eight randomized patients with refractory unstable angina were compared on an intention-to-treat basis. Outcomes (invasive vs conservative): (a) in hospital: stabilization (96% vs 43%, P=0.0001), non-fatal myocardial infarction (2.6% vs 4.2%, P=ns), death (1.3% vs 8.3%, P=0.046), combined outcome (3.9% vs 12.5%, P=0.053) and hospitalization (11.4+/-6.3 vs 12.4+/-8.0 days, P=ns). (b) 30-days follow-up: non-fatal myocardial infarction (2.6% vs 4.2%, P=ns), death (2.6% vs 11.1%, P=0.030) and combined outcome (5.3% vs 15.3%, P=0.031). (c) 12 month follow-up: non-fatal myocardial infarction (3. 9% vs 4.2%, P=ns), death (3.9% vs 12.5%, P=0.053), combined outcome (7.9% vs 16.7%, P=ns), re-admissions for unstable angina: (17.1% vs 23.6%, P=ns), late coronary angioplasty: (15.8% vs 11.1%, P=ns) and (d) late coronary bypass grafting: (7.9% vs 12.5%, P=ns). CONCLUSION: Invasive treatment of patients with refractory angina in remote areas without surgical back-up results in significant in-hospital stabilization and a reduction in major events in-hospital and at 30 days. Coronary angioplasty in stand-alone units and air-transfer of these patients seems safe.en
heal.journalNameEur Heart Jen
heal.journalTypepeer-reviewed-
heal.fullTextAvailabilityTRUE-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα σε επιστημονικά περιοδικά ( Ανοικτά) - ΙΑΤ

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Michalis-2000-Treatment of refract.pdf91.26 kBAdobe PDFView/Open    Request a copy


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons