<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Wellens, F.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/13578/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Laser-assisted lead extraction: The European experience (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/36614/</link>
      <pubDate>2007-08-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Aims: The aim of this study is to investigate the safety and effectiveness of Excimer laser-assisted lead extraction in Europe. The final European multi-centre study experience is presented. Method and results: The Excimer is a cool cutting laser (50°C) with a wavelength of 308 nm. The energy is emitted from the tip of a flexible sheath and is absorbed by proteins and lipids, 64% of the energy is absorbed at a tissue depth of 0.06 mm. The sheath is positioned over the lead, and the fibrosis surrounding the lead is vaporized while advancing the sheath without damaging other leads. From August 1996 to March 2001, 383 leads (170 atrial, 213 ventricular) in 292 patients (mean age 61.6 years, range 13 96) were extracted at 14 European centres. Mean implantation time was 74 months (3 358). Most frequent indications were pocket infection (26%), non-functional leads (21%), patient morbidity (21%), septicaemia or endocarditis (14%), erosion (5%), and lead interference (8%). Median extraction time was 15 min (1-300). Complete extraction was achieved in 90.9% of the leads and partial extraction in 3.4%. Extraction failed in 5.7% of the leads. Major complications = perforations caused 10/22 (3.4/5.7%) of the failures. Most partially extracted patients were considered clinically successful, as only minor lead parts without clinical significance were left. Femoral non-laser technique was used to remove 8/12 of the non-complication failures. The total complication rate, including five minor complications (1.7%), was 5.1%. No in-hospital mortality occurred. Conclusion: Pacing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads can safely, effectively, and predictably be extracted. Open-heart extractions can be limited to special cases. The results indicate that the traditional policy of abandoning redundant leads, instead of removing them, may be obsolete in many patients. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>The effect of completeness of revascularization on event-free survival at one year in the ARTS trial. (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/4797/</link>
      <pubDate>2002-02-20T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the relationship between completeness of revascularization and adverse events at one year in the ARTS (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study) trial. BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty to what extent degree of completeness of revascularization, using up-to-date techniques, influences medium-term outcome. METHODS: After consensus between surgeon and cardiologist regarding the potential for equivalence in the completeness of revascularization, 1,205 patients with multivessel disease were randomly assigned to either bypass surgery or stent implantation. All baseline and procedural angiograms and surgical case-record forms were centrally assessed for completeness of revascularization. RESULTS: Of 1,205 patients randomized, 1,172 underwent the assigned treatment. Complete data for review were available in 1,143 patients (97.5%). Complete revascularization was achieved in 84.1% of the surgically treated patients and 70.5% of the angioplasty patients (p &lt; 0.001). After one year, the stented angioplasty patients with incomplete revascularization showed a significantly lower event-free survival than stented patients with complete revascularization (i.e., freedom from death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident and repeat revascularization) (69.4% vs. 76.6%; p &lt; 0.05). This difference was due to a higher incidence of subsequent bypass procedures (10.0% vs. 2.0%; p &lt; 0.05). Conversely, at one year, bypass surgery patients with incomplete revascularization showed only a marginally lower event-free survival rate than those with complete revascularization (87.8% vs. 89.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Complete revascularization was more frequently accomplished by bypass surgery than by stent implantation. One year after bypass, there was no significant difference in event-free survival between surgically treated patients with complete revascularization and those with incomplete revascularization, but patients randomized to stenting with incomplete revascularization had a greater need for subsequent bypass surgery.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>