Influence of planned six-month follow-up angiography on late outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention
A randomized study
Jurriën M. ten Berg, MD*,
Johannes C. Kelder, MD*,
Maarten Jan Suttorp, MD, PhD*,
Freek W. A. Verheugt, MD, PhD, FACC and
H. W. Thijs Plokker, MD, PhD, FACC*
* Department of Cardiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center St. Radboud, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
View larger version (14K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Survival free from death, myocardial infarction (MI) and reintervention for patients randomized to clinical follow-up versus angiographic follow-up.
|
|
View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Freedom from revascularization for patients randomized to clinical follow-up versus angiographic follow-up.
|
|
View larger version (9K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3 Survival for patients randomized to clinical follow-up versus angiographic follow-up.
|
|
View larger version (14K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4 Survival free from death, myocardial infarction (MI) and reintervention for patients randomized to clinical follow-up alone (stented vs. nonstented patients).
|
|
View larger version (15K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5 Survival free from death, myocardial infarction (MI) and reintervention for patients randomized to angiographic follow-up (stented vs. nonstented patients).
|
|
View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 6 Freedom from reintervention for nonstented patients (clinical vs. angiographic follow-up).
|
|
View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 7 Freedom from reintervention for stented patients (clinical vs. angiographic follow-up).
|
|
|
