| abciximab-coated stent versus bare-metal stent | |||
| Kim, 2010 | abciximab-coated stent versus bare metal stents | patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary lesions | open Follow-up duration: 6 mo (2y) Korea |
| angioplasty versus MIDCAB | |||
| AMIST (Reeves), 2004 | percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with or without stenting versus minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) | single-vessel disease (at least 50% stenosis) of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). | open Follow-up duration: 12 months England |
| anticoagulant versus no anticoagulant | |||
| MacMillan, 1960 | versus | ||
| Borchegrevink, 1960 | versus | ||
| Clausen, 1961 | versus | ||
| Harvald, 1961 | versus | ||
| Conrad, 1964 | versus | ||
| Wasserman, 1966 | versus | ||
| Loeliger, 1967 | versus | ||
| Lovell, 1967 | versus | ||
| Seaman, 1969 | versus | ||
| Sorensen, 1969 | versus | ||
| Meuwisse,, 1969 | versus | ||
| Drapkin and Merskey, 1972 | versus | ||
| aspirin versus placebo | |||
| CDPA, 1976 | Aspirin (324 mg) 3x/d versus Placebo | MI survivors | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1.83 y USA |
| Cardiff I, 1974 | Aspirin (300 mg) 1x/d versus Placebo | MI survivors | Double blind Follow-up duration: 2 years UK |
| Cardiff II, 1979 | Aspirin (300 mg) 3x/d for one year versus Placebo | patients with myocardial infarction | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1 y South Wales |
| Vogel, 1979 | Aspirin (1.5 g daily) on an average period of 22 months
versus Placebo | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1.75 y (mean) Germany | |
| AMIS, 1980 NCT00000491 | Aspirin (500 mg) 2x/d for at least 3 years versus Placebo | men and women who had had a documented myocardial infarction | Double blind Follow-up duration: > 3 y USA |
| GAMIS, 1980 | Aspirin (500 mg) 3x/d for 2 years versus Placebo | patients who had survived a myocardial infarction for 30-42 days | Double blind Follow-up duration: 2 y Germany, Austria, |
| PARIS, 1980 | Aspirin (324 mg) 3x/d versus Placebo | patients who had recovered from myocardial infarction | Double blind Follow-up duration: 41 mo USA, UK |
| JAMIS, 1999 | Aspirin (81 mg) 1x/d versus No antiplatelets | patients with AMI within 1 month from the onset of symptoms | Open Follow-up duration: 1.3 y (mean) Japan |
| SAPAT, 1992 | aspirin 75 mg daily versus placebo | patients with stable chronic angina pectoris | double blind Follow-up duration: 50 months Sweden |
| autologous bone marrow–derived mononuclear cells versus placebo | |||
| Ramshorst, 2009 ISRCTN58194927 | intramyocardial injection of 100 x 10(6) autologous bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells versus placebo | patients with chronic myocardial ischemia | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months Netherlands |
| balloon angioplasty versus CABG | |||
| EAST, 1994 NCT00000465 | transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary-artery bypass grafting | patients with multivessels coronary artery disease | open Follow-up duration: 3 y USA |
| GABI, 1994 | Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary-artery bypass grafting | patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary disease | open Follow-up duration: 1 y Germany |
| BARI, 1996 NCT00000462 | PTCA versus CABG | Patients with multivessel disease | open Follow-up duration: 5.4 y USA, Canada |
| RITA, 1993 | percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery | patients with one, two, or three diseased coronary arteries | open Follow-up duration: 2.5 y (6.5y) UK |
| ERACI, 1992 | Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting | patients with multivessel disease and lesions suitable for either form of therapy | open Follow-up duration: 3.8 y Argentina |
| MASS, 1995 | percutaneous transluminal coronaryangioplasty versus mammary bypass surgery | patients with stable angina,normal ventricular function and a proximal stenosis of the leftanterior descending coronary artery >80% | open Follow-up duration: 3.2 y Brazil |
| Toulouse, 1992 | PTCA versus CABG | patients with multivessels coronary artery disease | open Follow-up duration: 2.8 y France |
| Lausanne, 1994 | transluminal coronary angioplasty versus Coronary artery bypass grafting | patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis, conserved left ventricular function, and documented ischaemia | open Follow-up duration: 3.2 y Switzerland |
| CABRI, 1995 | percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting | patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary disease | open Follow-up duration: 1 y Europe |
| balloon angioplasty versus medical treatment | |||
| RITA 2, 1997 | PTCA within 3 mo of the randomisation versus medical treatment | Angina leading to admission within 90days, previous Q wave MI, no previousPTCA, no left main stem disease | open Follow-up duration: 7y UK |
| ACME, 1992 | PTCA within 3 days of randomization versus medical treatment (nitrates, beta-blockers, calcium blockers) | Stable angina, history of angina, MIwithin 3 months, exercise test with STdepression >3 mm, no previous PTCA; Single or serial stenosis within sameartery 70% to 99% proximal twothirds | open Follow-up duration: 5y US |
| ACME 2 (Folland), 1997 | PTCA
versus medical therapy | Stable angina, history of angina, MIwithin 3 months, exercise test with STdepression >3 mm, no previous PTCA; Stenosis >70% proximal two thirds,no main artery stenosis >50%, no 3vessel disease | open Follow-up duration: 5y |
| ACIP, 1997 | revascularization by angioplasty or bypass surgery versus angina-guided drug therapy or angina plus ischemia-guided drug therapy | clinically stable patients with angiographically documented coronary disease (50% stenosis in 1 major vessel or branch) suitable for revascularization | open Follow-up duration: 24 months |
| INSPIRE, 2006 | coronary revascularization for suppressing scintigraphic ischemia versus intensive medical therapy strategy | Stable survivors of MI, total perfusion defect size 20%, ischemic defect size 10% (by adenosine SPECT), EF 35%t | open Follow-up duration: 60 months |
| SWISSI II, 2007 NCT00387231 | Percutaneous coronary intervention aimed at full revascularization versus intensive anti-ischemic drug therapy | patients with a recent MI, silent myocardial ischemia verified by stress imaging, and 1- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease | open Follow-up duration: 10.2y Switzerland |
| MASS, 1995 | PTCA versus medical treatment (aspirin, nitrates, beta-blockers and calcium channel blocking | Stable angina, no Q wave MI, no leftventricular dysfunction^¾„ | open Follow-up duration: 5y Brazil |
| Sievers, 1993 | PTCA versus medical treatment | Previous nonQ wave MI, no angina indaily life, no previous Q wave MI | open Follow-up duration: 2y Germany |
| bioabsorbable polymer EES versus everolimus eluting stent | |||
| EVOLVE, 2012 NCT01135225 | bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent versus polymer EES | patients with a de novo lesion ¡Ü28 mm in length, in a coronary artery of ¡Ý2.25 to ¡Ü3.5 mm diameter | single blind Follow-up duration: 30 days |
| biodegradable-polymer versus BMS | |||
| PAINT (sirolimus), 2009 NCT00752362 | biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting (Supralimus) versus bare metal stent (matrix) | patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels scheduled for stent implantation | open Follow-up duration: 12 mo (angiography 9 mo) |
| biolimus eluting stent versus sirolimus eluting stent | |||
| LEADERS, 2008 NCT00389220 | BioMatrix III (biolimus-eluting stent withbiodegradable polymer) versus Cypher SELECT (sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer) | patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes | open assessor-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months Europe |
| CABG versus medical treatment | |||
| STICH (vs med), 2011 NCT00023595 | CABG versus medical therapy | patients with congestive heart failure and severe LV dysfunction | open Follow-up duration: 56 months 26 countries |
| CASS subgroup, 1985 | CABG versus medical treatment | selected patients with chronic, stable coronary artery disease, sub group of patients ejection fractions above 0.34 but below 0.50 at base line | open Follow-up duration: 7 years |
| ECSS (European), 1988 | early coronary bypass surgery versus medical therapy | men with midl or moderate angina pectoris of at least 3 months duration and an obstruction of 50% or more in at least 2 major coronary arteries in the absence of marked LV dysfunction | open Follow-up duration: 12 y Europe (6 countries) |
| CASS, 1983 NCT00000489 | surgical versus nonsurgical | patients with stable ischemic heart disease | open Follow-up duration: 5y USA, Canada |
| VA, 1984 | coronary-artery bypass grafting versus medical treatment | patients with stable angina | open Follow-up duration: 7 y |
| Texas, 1977 | versus | ||
| Oregon, 1979 | surgical treatment versus medical treatment | patients with stable, disabling angina | |
| New zealand 1, 1981 | surgical versus nonsurgical | men 60 years of age or younger who had recovered from a recurrent myocardial infarction | Follow-up duration: 4.5 y |
| MASS II, 2007 | coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) versus medical therapy | multivessel coronary artery disease with stable angina and preserved ventricular function. | open Follow-up duration: 5 years |
| CABG or PCI versus medical treatment | |||
| BARI 2D, 2009 NCT00006305 | prompt revascularization with intensive medical therapy versus intensive medical therapy alone | patients with type 2 diabetes and heart disease | open Follow-up duration: 5.3 y US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Czech Republic, Austria |
| CABG+surgical ventricular reconstruction versus CABG | |||
| STICH (ventricular reconstruction), 2009 NCT00023595 | CABG with surgical ventricular reconstruction versus CABG | patients with anterior-apical regional left ventricular dysfunction | open Follow-up duration: 48 months |
| CD34+ cells versus placebo | |||
| Losordo, 2011 NCT00300053 | intramyocardial injection of autologous CD34+ cells versus placebo | patients with refractory angina who have exhausted all other treatment options | double-blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| clopidogrel versus aspirin | |||
| ASCET, NCT00222261 | clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for two years versus Aspirin 160 mg once daily for two years | patients with documented coronary heart disease and treated with aspirin | open |
| CAPRIE, 1996 | Clopidogrel (75 mg) 1x/d for a minimum of one year and a maximum of 3 years versus Aspirin (325 mg) 1x/d | patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease manifested as either recent ischaemic stroke, recent myocardial infarction, or symptomatic peripheral arterial disease | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1.91 y 16 countries (USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and NZ |
| CoStar stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent | |||
| Costar II, 2008 NCT00165035 | CoStar stent (Conor MedSystems) PES versus Taxus (Boston Scientific) PES | patient undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for a single lesion per vessel in up to three native epicardial vessels | single-blind Follow-up duration: 8 months (1 year) US, Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand |
| COSTAR II diabetic (sub group), 2008 | CoStar stent (PES) versus Taxus stent (PES) | patients with de novo single- or multivessel coronary disease | open Follow-up duration: 8 months |
| coumarin congeners versus placebo | |||
| Sixty Plus Reinfarction, 1980 | acenocoumarin orphenprocoumon versus placebos | elderly patients who had been on anticoagulants ever since their primary myocardial infarction | double-blind Follow-up duration: 2 years |
| dactinomycin eluting stent versus bare-metal stent | |||
| ACTION, 2004 | Multilink Tetra stent versus uncoated Multilink Tetra stent | Patients with stable angina pectoris orsilent ischemia and a single de novo lesion in a nativecoronary artery >=3.0 mm and <=4.0 mm in diameter thatcould be covered by an 18-mm stent | single-blind Follow-up duration: 6 months worldwide |
| DES versus bare-metal stent | |||
| ISAR-CABG, 2011 NCT00611910 | Drug-eluting stent (paclitaxel-eluting, sirolimus-eluting, or bioabsorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent) versus bare metal stent | patients with Bypass Graft Lesions | open Follow-up duration: 12 montsh (35 mo) |
| DES versus CABG | |||
| Boudriot, 2008 | DES versus CABG | open Follow-up duration: 12 months | |
| SYNTAX (unprotected left main sub group), 2009 | PCI versus CABG | patients with left main coronary artery disease | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| dicoumarol versus no anticoagulant | |||
| Apenstrom and Korsan-Bengtsen, 1964 | versus | ||
| dipyridamol versus control | |||
| Atlanta (Sbar), 1967 | dipyridamole 150mg daily versus placebo | patients with angina pectoris | double-blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Wirecki, 1967 | dipyridamole 150mg daily versus placebo | patients with angina pectoris | double blind Follow-up duration: 7 months |
| Becker, 1967 | dipyridamole 225mg daily versus placebo | double-blind Follow-up duration: 5 months | |
| dipyridamol versus placebo | |||
| Kinsella, 1962 | dipyridamole 37.5 mg and 100mg daily versus placebo | double-blind Follow-up duration: 0.5 months | |
| Leiberman, 1964 | dipyridamole 100mg daily versus placebo | double blind Follow-up duration: >3 months | |
| Zion, 1961 | Dipyridamole 37.5mg versus placebo | patients with angina pectoris | double-blind Follow-up duration: 0.5 months |
| Dewar, 1961 | Dipyridamole 100mg daily versus placebo | patients with angina pectoris | double-blind Follow-up duration: 0.5 months |
| Neumann, 1964 | dipyridamole 150mg daily versus placebo | elderly with precordial pain | double-blind Follow-up duration: 1.5 months |
| Foulds, 1960 | Dipyridamole 200mg daily versus placebo | patients with angina pectoris | double-blind Follow-up duration: 1 months |
| Igloe, 1970 | Dipyridamole 200mg daily versus placebo | patients with angina pectoris | double blind Follow-up duration: 2-7 months |
| dipyridamol + aspirin versus aspirin | |||
| PARIS, 1980 | Aspirin (324 mg) + dipyridamole (75 mg) 3x/d versus Aspirin (324 mg) 3x/d | patuents who had recovered from myocardial infarction | Double blind Follow-up duration: 41 months USA and GB |
| dipyridamol + aspirin versus placebo | |||
| PARIS, 1980 | Aspirin (324 mg) + dipyridamole (75 mg) 3x/d versus Placebo | patients who had recovered from myocardial infarction | Double blind Follow-up duration: 41 months (mean) USA and UK |
| PARIS-II, 1986 | Aspirin (330 mg) + dipyridamole (75 mg) 3x/d versus Placebo | patients who had recovered from myocardial infarction, suffered from 4 weeks to 4 months previously | Double blind Follow-up duration: 23.4 months USA and UK |
| double stenting with PES versus single stenting | |||
| BBC ONE, 2008 NCT00351260 | systematically stenting of both vessels with drug eluting stents(culotte or crush techniques) and with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation versus stenting of the main vessel followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent | patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions | open Follow-up duration: 9 months |
| double stenting with SES versus single stenting | |||
| CACTUS , 2009 | elective versus stenting of only the main branch, with provisional side-branch T-stenting | patients with true coronary bifurcation lesions | open Follow-up duration: 6 months Europe |
| Colombo, 2004 | stenting of both branches using sirolimus-eluting stent versus stenting of the main branch with provisional stenting of the side branch | patients with coronary bifurcation lesions | open Follow-up duration: 6.4 months Italy |
| Ferenc, 2008 | routine T-stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents in both branches versus provisional T-stenting with SES placement in the main branch followed by kissing-balloon angioplasty and provisional SES placement in the side branch only for inadequate results | patients with a coronary bifurcation lesion | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| NORDIC , 2006 | stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents of both main vessel and side branch versus stenting with sirolimus-eluting stent of main vessel and optional stenting of side branch | patients with a coronary bifurcation lesion | open Follow-up duration: 14 months |
| Pan, 2004 | Double stenting of both main and side branche versus single stenting of the main vessel only | patients with true coronary bifurcation lesions | open Follow-up duration: 11 months |
| drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stent | |||
| DEDICATION, 2008 NCT00192868 | DES currently used with or without distal protection versus BMS with or without distal protection | patients referred within 12 hours from symptom onset of an ST-elevation myocardial infarction | open Follow-up duration: 8 mo (15 mo, 3y) Denmark. |
| PASEO, 2009 | paclitaxel-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stent | patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 12 hours from symptom onset | open Follow-up duration: 4.3 years |
| dual sirolimus, probucol eluting stent versus sirolimus eluting stent | |||
| ISAR TEST 2 (vs SES), 2009 NCT00332397 | dual DES (polymer-free stent consisting of probucol and rapamycin) versus SES | patients with De novo lesions in native coronary arteries | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Germany |
| dual sirolimus, probucol eluting stent versus zotarolimus eluting stent | |||
| ISAR TEST 2 (vs ZES), 2009 NCT00332397 | dual DES (polymer-free stent consisting of probucol and rapamycin) versus permanent polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent (Endeavor) | patients with De novo lesions in native coronary arteries | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Germany |
| ISAR TEST 5, NCT00598533 | polymer-free, rapamycin/probucol-eluting “Dual-DES” stent versus zotarolimus-eluting stent with a modified permanent polymer on a cobalt-chromium alloy platform | "all-comers" population | Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| everolimus eluting stent versus bare-metal stent | |||
| BASKET-PROVE (EES), 2010 ISRCTN72444640 | second generation everolimus-eluting stent versus BMS | patients needing stents 3.0 mm or larger | open Follow-up duration: 2 years Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, Italy |
| FUTURE I, 2004 | everolimus coated S-Stent versus S-Stent | de novo coronary lesions | single-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months Germany |
| FUTURE II, 2006 | CHAMPION versus bare-metal stent | Patients with de novo lesions in vessels with a reference diameter of 2.75-4.0 mm and length | double-blind Follow-up duration: 6 months NA |
| SPIRIT I, 2005 NCT00180453 | everolimus eluting sent, XIENCE versus bare etal stent, MULTI-LINK VISION | patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions | single-blind Follow-up duration: 6 months (5yr) |
| everolimus eluting stent versus everolimus eluting stent | |||
| PLATINUM, 2011 NCT00823212 | platinum chromium everolimus-eluting stent versus cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stent | patients with up to 2 de novo atherosclerotic coronary artery lesions | single-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months worldwide |
| everolimus eluting stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent | |||
| COMPARE, 2009 NCT01016041 | polymer based, everolimus-eluting stent (Xience V) versus polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Liberte) | unselected patients | open Follow-up duration: 1 y (2y) the Netherlands |
| SPIRIT II, 2006 NCT00180310 | everolimus eluting stent, XIENCE V versus placitaxel eluting stent, TAXUS EXPRESS2 | De novo lesions (maximim two) | single-blind (patient) Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| SPIRIT III, 2008 NCT00180479 | everolimus-eluting stent, XIENCE V versus paclitaxel-eluting stent, Taxus | lesions 28 mm or less in length and with reference vessel diameter between 2.5 and 3.75 m | single-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months US |
| SPIRIT III (small vessel subgroup), 2009 | 2.5-mm everolimus-eluting stent versus 2.5-mm paclitaxel-eluting stent | patients included in SPIRIT III that received at least one 2.5-mm stent | open Follow-up duration: 9 months |
| SPIRIT IV, 2010 NCT00307047 | XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System versus TAXUS EXPRESS2 Paclitaxel Eluting Coronary Stent System (TAXUS). | patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions and reference vessel diameters between 2.5 mm to 4.25 mm and lesion lengths <= 28 mm | 270 days (5 years) Follow-up duration: 1 y (2y) USA |
| everolimus eluting stent versus sirolimus eluting stent | |||
| ISAR-TEST 4 (EES vs SES), | everolimus-eluting stent versus sirolimus-eluting stent | patients with de novo coronary artery stenosis >50% and symptoms or objective evidence of ischemia | Follow-up duration: 2 years |
| RESET, 2011 NCT01035450 | versus | ||
| SORT OUT IV, 2012 NCT00552877 | everolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents | unselected patients with coronary artery disease | open Follow-up duration: 9 months (3 years) Denmark |
| everolimus eluting stent versus sirolimus ES | |||
| ESSENCE diabetes, NCT00997763 | everolimus-eluting stent versus sirolimus-eluting stent | diabetic patients with angina or documented ischemia | open Follow-up duration: 1y for clinical events South Korea |
| FFR-guided PCI versus no PCI | |||
| FAME II, 2012 NCT01132495 | fractional-flow-reserve (FFR)-guided stenting versus optimal medical therapy alone | patients patients with stable CAD found on FFR to have hemodynamically relevant disease | Europe, US, and Canada |
| FAME, 2008 NCT00267774 | FFR-guided PCI (PCI with implantation of drug-eluting stents guided by FFR measurements in addition to angiography versus angiography-PCI (PCI with implantation of drug-eluting stents guided by angiography alone) | patients with multivessel coronary artery disease | open Follow-up duration: 1 year USA, Europe |
| DEFER, 2001 | PCI versus deferral (no PCI) | patients for whom PTCA was planned and who did not have documented ischemia and with fractional flow reserve >0.75 | open Follow-up duration: 24 months |
| fibroblast growth factor versus placebo | |||
| FIRST (Simons), 2002 | Single-bolus intracoronary administration of fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF2) versus placebo | patients with coronary artery disease | double blind Follow-up duration: 90 days |
| fibroblast growth factor gene versus placebo | |||
| AGENT 3 and 4 pooled, 0 | Ad5FGF-4 (replication deficient, E1A/E1Bdeleted, human adenovirus serotype 5 with human FGF-4 gene insert: alferminogene tadenovec versus | ||
| AGENT-1 (Grines), 2002 | Ad5FGF-4 (replication deficient, E1A/E1Bdeleted, human adenovirus serotype 5 with human FGF-4 gene insert: alferminogene tadenovec versus | ||
| AGENT-2 (Grines), 2003 | Ad5FGF-4 (replication deficient, E1A/E1Bdeleted, human adenovirus serotype 5 with human FGF-4 gene insert: alferminogene tadenovec versus | ||
| AGENT-3, 0 NCT00346437 | Ad5FGF-4 (replication deficient, E1A/E1Bdeleted, human adenovirus serotype 5 with human FGF-4 gene insert: alferminogene tadenovec versus placebo | ||
| AGENT-4, 0 NCT00185263 | Ad5FGF-4 (replication deficient, E1A/E1Bdeleted, human adenovirus serotype 5 with human FGF-4 gene insert: alferminogene tadenovec versus placebo | ||
| AWARE, 0 NCT00438867 | intracoronary infusion of Ad5FGF-4 versus placebo | Female Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris Who Are Not Candidates for Revascularization | double blind |
| gene therapy versus placebo | |||
| EUROINJECT-ONE (Gyöngyösi), 2005 | percutaneously via NOGA-Myostar injectionsof plasmid encoding plasmid human (ph)VEGF-A(165) versus placebo | patients with chronic myocardial ischemia | double blind |
| Genous stent versus bare-metal stent | |||
| GENIUS-STEMI, 2009 | endothelial progenitor cell capture stent versus cobalt chromium stent | patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction | NA Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Genous stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent | |||
| TRIAS-HR, 2008 ISRCTN74297220 | Genous stent (antibody-coated bare-metal stent) followed by one month of dual antiplatelet therapy versus Taxus or Cypher followed by at least six months of dual antiplatelet therapy | high-risk patients (long lesions, small vessels, chronic total occlusions, or any lesion in a diabetic patient) | single-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| kissing balloon versus no kissing balloon | |||
| Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study III, 2009 NCT00914199 | Kissing balloon dilatation post-stenting of the main artery (one-stent technique) versus no kissing balloon dilatation | patients with bifurcation lesions | open Follow-up duration: 6 mo Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Sweden, Norway |
| Nevo versus paclitaxel eluting stent | |||
| NEVO RES-ELUTION I, 0 NCT00714883 | Nevo sirolimus eluting stent with bioresordable PLGA polymer versus placlitaxel eluting stent (Liberté) | patients with single, de novo lesions | open Follow-up duration: 6 months Europe, Brazil, Australia, and New Zealand |
| nicorandil versus control | |||
| Nishimura, 2009 | nicorandil 15 mg daily versus control | Maintenance hemodialysis patients who underwent percutaneous coronary artery intervention and had complete coronary revascularization (absence of both restenosis and de novo coronary lesion) at coronary arteriography 6 months later | open Follow-up duration: 2.7 years Japan |
| nicoumalone or phenprocoumon versus placebo | |||
| ASPECT, 1994 | anticoagulant (nicoumalone or phenprocoumon) versus placebo | hospital survivors of myocardial infarction | Follow-up duration: 37 months |
| paclitaxel eluting balloon versus brachytherapy | |||
| TAXUS V ISR, 2006 NCT00287573 | TAXUS Express2 versus angioplasty followed by vascular brachytherapy with a beta source | patients with restenotic lesions after prior stent implantation in native coronary arteries | open North America |
| paclitaxel eluting stent versus balloon angioplasty | |||
| ISAR-DESIRE (PES vs PTCA), 2005 | TAXUS versus ballon angioplasty | In-stent restenosis. AP and/or positive test, previously stented, no AMI | open Follow-up duration: 1y germany |
| paclitaxel eluting stent versus bare-metal stent | |||
| Erglis, 2007 | IVUS-guided paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Express) after lesion pre-treatment with cutting balloon versus IVUS-guided bare-metal (Express or Liberte) after lesion pre-treatment with cutting balloon | percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main artery stenosis | open Follow-up duration: 6 months NA |
| HAAMU-STENT, 2006 | Taxus Express versus Bare-metal-stent | AMI - STEMI patients undergoing PCI | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Finland |
| HORIZONS-AMI Stent, 2008 | paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus) versus BMS (Express) | ST-elevation myocardial infarction | open Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| PASSION, 2006 ISRCTN65027270 | Taxus Express2 versus Express2 or Liberté | Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation | open Follow-up duration: 12 months (5y) The Netherlands |
| SCORE, 2004 | QuaDDS stents (paclitaxel) versus uncoated control stents | patients with focal, de novo coronary lesions | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Worldwide |
| SOS, 2008 NCT00247208 | Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent (Taxus) versus bare metal stent (Express-2) | patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein bypass grafts | open Follow-up duration: 1.5y median USA, Greece |
| TAXUS I, 2003 | TAXUS NIR versus NIR stent | Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia; single de novo or restenotic coronary lesions | double-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months Germany |
| TAXUS II, 2003 NCT00299026 | TAXUS versus NIR stent | Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia; single de novo target lesion with estimatedstenosis >50% and <99%, | double-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months Global |
| TAXUS II (diabetics), 2003 | TAXUS versus NIR stent | Diabetic patients with stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia; single de novo target lesion with estimatedstenosis >50% and <99%, | double-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months Europe |
| TAXUS IV, 2004 NCT00292474 | TAXUS versus EXPRESS | Stable or unstable AP, provokable ischaemia with a single, previously untreated coronary-artery stenosis (vessel diameter, 2.5 to 3.75 mm; lesion length, 10 to 28 mm) | double-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months United States |
| TAXUS IV (diabetics), 2005 NCT00292474 | TAXUS versus EXPRESS | Diabetic patients with stable or unstable AP, provokable ischaemia with a single, previously untreated coronary-artery stenosis (vessel diameter, 2.5 to 3.75 mm; lesion length, 10 to 28 mm) | double-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months United States |
| TAXUS V (all patients), 2005 NCT00301522 | TAXUS versus bare metal EXPRESS-2 | Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia with single coronary artery stenosis including complex or previously unstudied lesions (requiring 2.25-mm, 4.0-mm, and/or multiple stents) | double-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months United States |
| TAXUS V (diabetics), 2005 | TAXUS versus BMS | Diabetic patients with stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia with complex or previously unstudied lesions (requiring 2.25-mm, 4.0-mm, and/or multiple stents) | double-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months United States |
| TAXUS V small vessels sub groups, 0 | paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare metal stents | patients who underwent stent implantation in a single coronary artery stenosis (vessel diameter, 2.25-4.0 mm; lesion length, 10-46 mm), subgroup of small vessel patients | |
| TAXUS VI, 2005 NCT00297804 | TAXUS versus Express2 stent | Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia with long, complex coronary artery lesions | double-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months (2y) Europe |
| TAXUS VI (diabetics), 2005 NCT00297804 | TAXUS versus Express2 stent | Diabetic patients with stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia with long, complex coronary artery lesions | double-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months Europe |
| paclitaxel eluting stent versus CABG | |||
| SYNTAX, 2009 NCT00114972 | paclitaxel (taxus Express SR) versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (on- or off-pump bypass) | patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both) (complex lesions) | open Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| paclitaxel eluting stent versus sirolimus eluting stent | |||
| ISAR-test (diabetics), 2006 | Taxus versus rapamycin stent | diabetics patients with de novo lesions in native coronary vessels, excluding the left main trunk | open Follow-up duration: 9 months germany |
| paclitaxel, non-polymeric eluting stent versus bare-metal stent | |||
| ASPECT, 2003 NCT00196079 | coated Supra-G stent versus Supra-G stent | patientswith discrete coronary lesions (<15 mm in length, 2.25 to 3.5 mm in diameter) | double-blind Follow-up duration: 6 months NA |
| DELIVER, 2004 | non-polymer-based paclitaxel-coated ACHIEVE stent versus stainless steel Multi-Link (ML) PENTA stent | patients with focal de novo coronary lesions, <25 mm in length, in 2.5- to 4.0-mm vessels | single-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months US |
| ELUTES, 2004 | coated V-Flex Plus versus V-Flex Plus | single de novo type A or type B1 lesions 15 mm length in a nativecoronary artery | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Europe |
| PATENCY, 2002 | Logic PTX paclitaxel Eluting CoronaryStents versus uncoated control stents | Patients with de novo lesions of 2.7- to 4.0-mm diameter and 25-mm length received 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0 mm 10- or 15-mm | double blind Follow-up duration: 9 months |
| PCI versus CABG | |||
| AWESOME, 2001 | percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft | high-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia | open Follow-up duration: 5 years US (Veterans Affairs Medical Centers) |
| PCI with drug-eluting stents versus CABG | |||
| SYNTAX (diabetic), 2010 NCT00114972 | paclitaxel-eluting stents versus surgical revascularization | sub group of diabetic patients with left main and/or 3-vessel disease | Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| FREEDOM, 2012 NCT00086450 | percutaneous coronary stenting versus CABG | patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease | open Follow-up duration: 3.8 yrs (median) international |
| PCI with or without stent versus medical treatment | |||
| TIME, 2001 | coronary angiography and revascularisation versus optimised medical therapy | patients aged 75 years or older with chronic angina of at least Canadian Cardiac Society class II despite at least two antianginal drugs | open |
| AVERT, 1995 | angioplasty versus atorvastatin at 80 mg per day | Angina or asymptomatic, MI orunstable angina but not within 14 days,no triple vessel disease | open Follow-up duration: 1.5y |
| Dakik, 1998 | PTCA versus intensive medical therapy | stable survivors of AMI | open Follow-up duration: 1y |
| MASS II, 2007 | PCI versus medical therapy | patients with multivessel coronary artery disease with stable angina and preserved ventricular function | open Follow-up duration: 5y |
| COURAGE, 2007 NCT00007657 | PCI coupled with optimal medical therapy versus optimal medical therapy aloneitm | patients with stable coronary artery disease | open Follow-up duration: median 4.6 y Canada, US |
| ALKK, 2003 | angioplasty versus medical therapy | patients with single vessel disease of the infarct vessel and no or minor angina pectoris in the subacute phase (1 to 6 weeks) after an acute myocardial infarction | open Follow-up duration: 4.7y Germany |
| Hambrecht, 2004 | PCI versus 12 months of exercise training (20 minutes of bicycle ergometry per day) | male patients aged 70 years | open Follow-up duration: 1y |
| Bech, 2001 | PTCA versus deferral of PTCA | patients with planned PTCA and no documented ischemia and with coronary pressure–derived fractional flow reserve >0.75 | open Follow-up duration: 2y |
| PCI withdrug-eluting stents versus CABG | |||
| Hong, 2005 | drug-eluting stents versus invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery | proximal left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery stenosis | open Follow-up duration: 9 months |
| PCI withsirolimus ES versus MIDCAB | |||
| Thiele, 2009 NCT00299429 | sirolimus-eluting stent versus MIDCAB surgery | isolated LAD disease | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Germany |
| phenprocoumon versus placebo | |||
| Breddin, 1980 | versus | patients who had survived a myocardial infarction for 30-42 days | double-blind |
| polymer free sirolimus stent versus sirolimus eluting stent | |||
| ISAR TEST 3 (PF), 2009 | polymer free 2% rapamycin (479 mg rapamycin/cm2) stent versus permanent-polymer rapamycin-eluting stent (Cypher) (140 mg rapamycin/cm2) | Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Germany |
| polymer-free biolimus a9-eluting stents versus paclitaxel eluting stent | |||
| BIOFREEDOM, NCT01172119 | polymer-free biolimus A9-eluting stent versus paclitaxel-eluting stent | patients with symptomatic ischemic heart disease, and stenosis in native coronary arteries ranging in diameter from >=2.25 mm to <=3.0 mm | |
| ranolazine 1000mg versus placebo | |||
| MARIZA, 2004 | ranolazine 500 mg twice daily (sustained-release ranolazine 500, 1,000, or 1,500 mg) versus placebo | Patients with angina-limited exercise | double blind Follow-up duration: 1 week US, Czech Republic, Poland, Canada |
| RAN080, 2005 | ranolazine IR 400mg TID versus placebo | patients who had symptom-limited exercise | double blind Follow-up duration: 1 week Europe, canada |
| ranolazine 1000mg versus placebo (on top standard treatment) | |||
| CARISA 1000mg, 2004 | ranozaline 1000mg (in combination with beta-blockers or calcium antagonists) versus placebo | patients with severe chronic angina who have symptoms of chronic angina and who experience angina and ischemia at low workloads despite taking standard doses of atenolol, amlodipine, or diltiazem | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| ranolazine 1000mg + amlodipine versus placebo + amlodipine | |||
| ERICA, 2006 NCT00091429 | ranolazine 1000 mg twice a day for 6 weeks + amlodipine (10 mg/d) versus placebo + amlodipine (10 mg/d) | patients with stable chronic angina already treated with the maximal dose of amlodipine (10mg/d) | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 weeks Europe, USA, Canada |
| sirolimus biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus eluting stent | |||
| ISAR TEST 3 (BP), 2009 | biodegradable-polymer 0.4% rapamycin stent (180 mg rapamycin/cm2) versus permanent-polymer rapamycin-eluting stent (Cypher) (140 mg rapamycin/cm2) | Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Germany |
| ISAR-TEST-4 (biodegradable polymer), 2009 NCT00598676). | biodegradable polymer rapamycin-eluting stent versus permanent polymer-based rapamycin-eluting or everolimus-eluting | patients with stable coronary disease or acute coronary syndromes with de novo native-vessel stent implantation | open Follow-up duration: 12 mo Germany |
| sirolimus eluting stent versus balloon angioplasty | |||
| ISAR-DESIRE (SES vs PTCA), 2005 | Cypher versus ballon angioplasty | In-stent restenosis. AP and/or positive test, previously stented, no AMI | open Follow-up duration: 1y germany |
| sirolimus eluting stent versus bare-metal stent | |||
| BASKET-PROVE (SES), 2010 ISRCTN72444640 | first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent versus BMS | patients needing stents 3.0 mm or larger | open Follow-up duration: 2 years Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, Italy |
| C-SIRIUS, 2004 NCT00381420 | coated Bx-VELOCITY versus Bx-VELOCITY | Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia | double-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months Canada |
| DEBATER (SES vs BMS), 2009 | sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents | patients undergoing PCI for STEMI withon 12 hours | Follow-up duration: 1 y |
| DECODE, 2005 NCT00489164 | CYPHER (Up to 3 stents per patient were allowed) versus Bx VELOCITY (Up to 3 stents per patient were allowed) | Stable or unstable angina in diabetic patients with with up to 2 de novo lesions in up to 2 native coronary vessels | open Follow-up duration: 1 year US, Asia/Pacific |
| DESSERT, 2008 | Cypher andCypher Select versus Sonic (Cordis) | de novo lesions of diabetic patients treated with insulin and/or oral antidiabetics for >3 months | single-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months Italy |
| DIABETES, 2005 | Cypher versus Bx Velocity/Sonic | de novo lesions in native coronary arteriesin 1, 2, or 3 native vessels with symptoms or objective evidence of ischemia; vessel size smaller than 4.0 mm | open Follow-up duration: 9 months Spanish |
| Díaz de la Llera, 2007 | sirolimus-eluting stents versus uncoated stents | primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation | open Follow-up duration: 1y Spain |
| E-SIRIUS, 2003 NCT00235144 | coated Bx Velocity versus Bx Velocity | Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia; single-vessel or multivessel coronary disease but with only one new lesion with an estimated stenosis of more than 50% but less than 100% in a major native coronary artery requiring treatment | open Follow-up duration: 9 months Europe |
| GISSOC II, 2010 NCT00220558 | Sirolimus Eluting Stent versus Bare Metal Stent | patients with Chronic Total Occlusion older than 1 month, and successful recanalization | open Follow-up duration: 8 months Italy |
| Kochiadakis, 2007 | sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stent | one-vesseldisease (>70% narrowing of the lumen of one major epicardialcoronary artery); stable coronary artery disease, age <70 years, and vessel referencediameter >=2.5 mm | open Follow-up duration: 4.8 months (mean) Greece |
| MISSION, 2008 ISRCTN62825862 | Cypher versus Vision | primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (<9h) | single-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months the Netherlands |
| Ortolani et al, 2007 | Cypher versus Vision | symptomatic coronary artery disease and target vessel diameter appropriate for implantation a 3-mm stent | single-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months |
| Pache et al, 2005 | Cypher versus BeStent 2 | with symptomatic coronary artery disease and significant angiographic stenosis in native coronary vessels | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Germany |
| Pasceri, 2003 | Cypher versus | Follow-up duration: 12 months | |
| PRISON II, 2006 NCT00258596 | Cypher versus BxVelocity | Chronic total occlusion, positive exercise stress test | single-blind Follow-up duration: 6 months Belgium |
| RAVEL, 2002 NCT00233805 | coated Bx Velocity versus Bx Velocity | Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia; single primary target lesion in a native coronary artery | double-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months Global |
| Ravel (diabetics), 2004 | coated Bx velocity versus Bx VELOCITY | sub groups of diabetic patients with de novo native coronary arterylesions 2.5 to 3.5 mm in diameter by visualassessment that could be covered by an 18-mm stent | NA Follow-up duration: 6 months Europe |
| RRISC, 2006 NCT00263263 | Cypher versus BX-Velocity | Stable or unstable AP, with previous coronary artery bypass surgery and degenerated vein grafts | open Follow-up duration: 6 months (3 years) Belgium, The netherlands |
| SCANDSTENT, 2006 NCT00151658 | Cypher versus Sonic | Stable or unstable AP, recent AMI (non ST-elevation); with one or more de novo complex lesions in native coronary vessels (occluded, bifurcational, ostial or angulated) | open Follow-up duration: 7 months Denmark |
| SCANDSTENT (subgroup), 2006 | SES implanted after successful recanalization versus BMS implanted after successful recanalization | patients with coronary artery disease and a total coronary occlusion > or = 15 mm in length | open Follow-up duration: 17 mo (angiography 7 mo) |
| SCORPIUS, 2007 NCT00495898 | Cypher versus Bx-Velocity | patients with diabetes and de novo coronary artery lesions | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Germany |
| SES-SMART, 2004 | Cypher versus Bx Sonic | Stable AP, ACS, silent myocardial ischaemia as shown by exercise stress test | single-blind Follow-up duration: 8 months Italian |
| SES-SMARt (diabetics), 2005 | Cypher versus Bx Sonic | Diabetic patients with de novo target lesion <=2.75 mm in diameter in a native coronary artery that could be completely covered by a single stent (maximum length 33 mm) | single-blind Follow-up duration: 8 months Italy |
| SESAMI, 2007 NCT00288210 | Cypher versus BX stent, Cordis | AMI | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Italy |
| SIRIUS, 2003 NCT00232765 | SES versus Bx Velocity | Stable or unstable AP, signs of myocardial ischaemia | double-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months United States |
| SIRIUS (diabetics), 2003 | SES versus BMS | sub group of diabetics patients of SIRIUS study | double-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months US |
| TYPHOON, 2006 NCT00232830 | Cypher or CypherSelect versus any commerciallyavailable uncoated stent | AMI | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Worldwide (15 countries) |
| sirolimus eluting stent versus brachytherapy | |||
| SISR, 2007 NCT00231257 | Sirolimus-eluting stents versus brachytherapy | restenosis within a bare metal stent | open Follow-up duration: 12 months US and Canadian |
| sirolimus eluting stent versus CABG | |||
| PRECOMBAT, 2011 NCT00422968 | PCI with sirolimus-eluting stents versus CABG | patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis | |
| sirolimus eluting stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent | |||
| BASKET (vs paclitaxel), 2005 | Cypher versus Taxus | Unselected patients; de-novo lesions | open Follow-up duration: 6 months Switzerland, |
| Cervinka, 2006 | sirolimus-eluting stent versus paclitaxel-eluting stent | Complex lesionsand patients. Signs and/or symptoms myocardial ischaemia, including AMI | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| CORPAL, 2005 | sirolimus versus paclitaxel | Documented myocardial ischaemia, no AMI | open Spain |
| DES-DIABETES, 2008 | sirolimus-eluting stent versus paclitaxel-elutingstent | diabetic patients with angina pectoris and/or a positive stress test and a native coronary lesion | open Follow-up duration: 9 months (1 year) Korea |
| Di Lorenzo et al., 2005 | sirolimus versus paclitaxel | ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction | open NA |
| Han, 2006 | Cypher versus Taxus | Multivessel disease. Stable or unstable AP, no AMI | open Follow-up duration: 19.5 months (mean) China |
| ISAR-DESIRE (SES vs PES), 2005 | Cypher versus Taxus | In-stent restenosis. AP and/or positive test, previously stented, no AMI | open Follow-up duration: 1y germany |
| ISAR-DESIRE-2, 2010 NCT00598715 | sirolimus-eluting stent versus paclitaxel-eluting stent | coronary restenosis in sirolimus-eluting stents | open Follow-up duration: 1y Germany |
| ISAR-DIABETES, 2005 | Taxus versus Cypher | Diabetic patients. AP or positive stress, no AMI with clinically significant angiographic stenosis in a native coronary vessel | open Follow-up duration: 9 months Germany |
| ISAR-LEFT-MAIN, 2009 NCT00133237 | Paclitaxel-eluting stent versus Sirolimus-eluting stent | Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease | open Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| ISAR-SMART 3, 2006 NCT00146575 | Taxus versus Cypher | Small vessels, de novo lesions in native coronary vessels with a diameter of <2.80 mm nondiabetic patients. AP or positive stress, no AMI | NA Germany |
| ISAR-TEST-1, 2006 NCT00140530 | rapamycin-eluting stent Yukon versus Taxus | stable or unstable anginaor a positive stress test, stable or unstable anginaor a positive stress test | open Follow-up duration: 9 months Germany |
| Kim, 2008 | Cypher versus Taxus | Korean diabetic patients with high-grade de novo coronary lesions (stenosis of>70 percent of the luminal diameter) requiring <3 stents | open Follow-up duration: 6 months Korea |
| LONG DES II, 2006 | SES versus PES | Long lesions. AP or positive stress, no AMI | single-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months Korea |
| Pan, 2007 | SES for provisional T-stenting versus PES for provisional T-stenting | patients with bifurcation lesions | open Follow-up duration: 24 months (mean) Spain |
| Petronio et al, 2007 | Cypher versus Taxus | Complex lesions. Stable AP or documented ischaemia, no AMI | open Follow-up duration: 9 months Italy |
| PROSIT, 2006 | SES Cordis versus PES Boston Scientific | AMI or persistent ischaemia 12-24h | open Follow-up duration: 1 year Korea |
| REALITY, 2006 NCT00235092 | Cypher versus Taxus | Relatively unselected patients. Stable or unstable documented silent ischaemia, no AMI with 1 or 2 de novo lesions (2.25-3.00 mm in diameter) in native coronary arteries | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Europe, Latin America, and Asiam |
| REALITY (diabetics), 2006 | SES versus PES | open Follow-up duration: 12 months worldwide | |
| SIRTAX (small vessels subgroup), 2005 | Cypher versus Taxus | Unselected patients. Stable AP, ACS, including AMI. at least one lesion with stenosis of at least 50 percent in a vessel with a reference diameter between 2.25 and 4.00 mm that was suitable for stent implantation | single-blind Follow-up duration: 9 months Switzerland |
| SIRTAX (Windecker), 2005 | sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus) | Unselected patients. Stable AP, ACS, including AMI. at least one lesion with stenosis of at least 50 percent in a vessel with a reference diameter between 2.25 and 4.00 mm that was suitable for stent implantation | single-blind Follow-up duration: 9 mo (5y) Switzerland |
| SIRTAX diabetics, 2005 NCT00297661 | Cypher versus Taxus | Sub groups of diabetics patients with either stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome | single-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months Switzerland |
| SORT OUT II, 2008 NCT00388934 | Cypher stent versus Taxus stent(Boston Scientific Corp) | Unselected patients (included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI or unstable angina pectoris, and stable angina) | open Denmark. |
| TAXi, 2005 | Cypher versus Taxus | Unselected patients | open Follow-up duration: 6 months Switzerland. |
| TAxi (diabetics), 3000 | SES versus PES | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Switzerland | |
| Tomai, 2008 | sirolimus-eluting stent versus paclitaxel-eluting stent | diabetic patient with multiple de novo coronary artery lesions | NA Follow-up duration: 8 months Italy |
| Wessely, 2008 | rapamycin polymer-coated drug-eluting stent versus paclitaxel polymer-coated drug-eluting stent | NA Follow-up duration: 9 months Germany | |
| Zhang (SES vs PES), 2006 | Cypher versus Taxus | Unselected patients. Stable or unstable AP, ACS with de novo coronary lesions | open Follow-up duration: 1y China |
| sirolimus eluting stent versus PTCA | |||
| CRISTAL, 0 NCT00323895 | sirolimus-eluting stent versus balloon re-percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty | Intra-Des Restenosis | |
| RIBS-II, 2008 | sirolimus-eluting stents versus Balloon angioplasty | patients with bare metal in-stent restenosis | open Follow-up duration: >1 year Spanish |
| stem cells CD34+ versus placebo | |||
| Losordo, 2007 NCT00081913 | Injection of Autologous CD34-Positive Cells versus placebo | Patientswith Canadian Cardiovascular Society class 3 or 4 angina who were undergoing optimal medical treatment and who were not candidates for mechanical revascularization | double blind |
| stent versus balloon angioplasty | |||
| Lincoff (EPISTENT), 1999 NCT00271401 | stent followed by aspirin 325 mg, abciximab versus balloon angioplasty followed by aspirin 325 mg, abciximab | patients with ischaemic heart disease and suitable coronary-artery lesions | open Follow-up duration: 6 months USA, Canada |
| Hoher, 1999 | Wiktor versus PTCA alone | patients with a thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 0 chronic coronary occlusion | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Serruys Benestent, 1994 | Palmaz-Schatz versus balloon angioplasty, aspirin 250-500 mg + dipyridamole 75 mgx3 | Stable angina | Open Follow-up duration: 7 months Europe |
| Fischman STRESS, 1994 | Palmaz-Schatz versus ballon angioplasty aspirin, dipyridamol | Stable angina | Open Follow-up duration: 6 months USA |
| Eeckout, 1996 | Wiktor stent implantation versus conventional balloon angioplasty | Stable angina | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Sirnes, 1996 | Palmaz-Schatz versus PTCA alone | patients with a satisfactory result after successful recanalization by PTCA of a chronic coronary occlusion | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Versaci , 1997 | Palmaz-Schatz versus standard coronary angioplasty, aspirin and diltiazem indefinitely | patients with isolated stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Italy |
| Savage, 1998 | Palmaz-Schatz stent versus standard balloon angioplasty | patients with new lesions in aortocoronary-venous bypass grafts | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Erbel, 1998 | Palmaz-Schatz versus standard balloon angioplasty | patients with clinical and angiographic evidence of restenosis after at least one balloon angioplasty | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Rubartelli, 1998 | Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation versus PTCA alone | patients with recanalized total occlusion | open Follow-up duration: 9 months |
| Hancock, 1998 | Palmaz-Schatz versus angioplasty alone | patients with a total coronary occlusion successfully treated by PTCA | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Serruys Benestent 2, 1998 | Heparin-coated Palmaz-Schatz versus ballon angioplastyaspirin >=100mg 6 month | Stable and unstable angina | Open Follow-up duration: 12 months Europe |
| Rodriguez, 1998 | stent versus optimal PTCA | patients obtaining a good immediate angiographic result after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Sievert, 1999 | stent implantation versus angioplasty alone | Stable angina | open Follow-up duration: 4 months |
| Betriu, 1999 | Palmaz-Schatz versus standard balloon angioplasty | Stable and unstable angina | open Follow-up duration: 6 months (4y) |
| Buller, 1999 | Heparin-coated Palmaz-Schatz versus PTCA | patients with nonacute native coronary occlusions | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Serruys, 2000 | primary stenting versus balloon angioplasty | patients scheduled for single-vessel angioplasty | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| Di Marlo, 2000 | elective stent implantation versus guided PTCA | Stable and unstable angina; no AMI inprevious 24 h | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| Kastrati, 2000 | Multilink versus PTCA | Patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease with lesions situated in native coronary vessels between 2 and 2.8 mm in size | open Follow-up duration: 7 months |
| Witkowski, 2000 | Palmaz-Schatz stent versus angioplasty | Symptomatic CAD; no AMI in previous 14 d | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Lafont, 2000 | systematic stenting versus provisional stenting (group 1, in which stenting was performed if postangioplasty coronary velocity reserve was <2.2 and/or residual stenosis > or =35% or as bail-out) | patients undergoing elective coronary angioplasty | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Fluck, 2000 | Wiktor stent versus balloon angioplasty | Symptomatic CAD; no AMI in previous 7 d | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| Dangas, 2000 | elective stenting (Palmaz-Schatz stent) versus PTCA with prolonged perfusion balloon inflation | patients with discrete, de novo lesions in native coronary arteries > or =3 mm in diameter | open Follow-up duration: 8 months |
| Weaver, 2000 | routine stent implantation (Palmaz-Schatz) versus balloon angioplasty and provisional stenting | patients undergoing single-vessel coronary angioplasty | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Lotan, 2000 | stent implantation (AVE Micro Stent) versus no further treatment | with total coronary artery occlusions who had an optimal PTCA result | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Park, 2000 | elective stent placement (7-cell NIR stent) versus balloon angioplasty | patients with lesions in small coronary arteries (de novo, non-ostial lesion and reference diameter <3 mm) | open Follow-up duration: 6 months (16 m) |
| Koning, 2001 | stent implantation (beStent Small) versus standard balloon angioplasty | symptomatic patients with de novo focal lesion located on a small coronary segment vessel (<3 mm) | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Doucet, 2001 | stent implantation (beStent-Artist) versus angioplasty alone | symptomatic patients needing dilatation of 1 native coronary vessel between 2.3 and 2.9 mm in size | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Moer, 2001 | elective stenting treatment with the heparin (Hepamed)-coated beStent versus PTCA | patients with stable or unstable angina | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| stent versus CABG | |||
| ARTS, 2001 | Palmaz-Schatz Crown/Cross flex (Cordis) versus Conventional CABG | Multi vessel disease with 2 or more de novo lesion in different major arteries Total occlusion < 1month | open Follow-up duration: 1 year International |
| CARDia (PCI), 2008 ISRCTN19872154 | PCI plus stenting (and routine abciximab) versus CABG | Patients with diabetes and symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease or complex single-vessel disease. | open Follow-up duration: 1 y UK, Ireland |
| ERACI II, 2003 | Gianturco Robin II (Cook) Primary device versus Conventional CABG | multi vessel disease Angina CSS III-IV; no angina but large area of heart at risk; unstable =1 vessel to be treated Lesion>3.0mm | open Follow-up duration: 30d, 1year Argentinad |
| LEMANS, 2002 NCT00375063 | unprotected left main stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting | patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis | open Follow-up duration: 1y Poland |
| MASS II, 2007 | PCI (73% stent) versus CABG | patients with multivessel coronary artery disease with stable angina and preserved ventricular function | open Follow-up duration: 5y (1y) South America |
| Myoprotect, 2004 | percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty/stent versus CABG | patients with symptomatic main-stem and main-stem-equivalent lesions with substantially increased risk for bypass surgery | open Follow-up duration: 1 year Europe |
| SOS, 2002 NCT00475449 | Stent versus CABG | multiple vessel disease Symptomatic 1 or more vessel suitable for stenting | open Follow-up duration: 3 years Canada, United Kingdom, Europe |
| stent versus E-ACAB | |||
| Cisowski, 0 | Tristar, Tera, Penta (Guidant) (Cordis) versus endoscopic atraumatic coronary artery bypass grafting | single vessel disease ACC/AHA A or B lesion in proximal LAD Angina CCS II or higher Lesion diameter 3 mm orgreater/length 20mm or greater | open Follow-up duration: 2 years Poland |
| stent versus MIDCAB | |||
| Diegeler, 2002 | Various stents versus minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (off-pump proceedure) | single vessel disease Lesion =75% stenosis in proximal LAD or between origin of left circumflex and 1st septal branch | open Follow-up duration: 5 years Germany |
| Drenth, 2002 | Stent type not reported versus minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (off-pump proceedure | single vessel disease Angina II Lesion (Grade B2 or C) of proximal LAD Suitable for CABG or stenting | open Follow-up duration: 6 months, 3 years Netherlands |
| Grip, 2001 | Stent type not reported versus minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (off-pump proceedure) | single vessel disease engaging LAD Stable or unstable angina | open Sweden |
| Kim, 2005 | Stent versus MIDCAB using ministernotomy | patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending artery disease | open Follow-up duration: 2 years Korea |
| SIMA, 2000 | Any CE marked, but Palmaz-Schatz recommended versus Conventional CABG or minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (off-pump proceedure) (10% of surgical procedures | single vessel disease Symptomatic or silent ischaemia 1 LAD lesion Ejection fraction >45% Vessel >3.0mm | open Follow-up duration: 2.4 years Europe |
| stent versus OPCAB | |||
| OCTOSTENT, 2003 NCT00975858 | Stent type not reported versus off-pump coronary artery bypass | multi or single vessel disease Moderate LV function CABG or stenting to be considered feasible | open Follow-up duration: 1 year Europe |
| ticlopidine versus placebo | |||
| Berglund, 1985 | ticlopidine 500 mg daily versus placebo | middle-aged men with stable incapacitating angina pectoris | double blind Follow-up duration: 2m |
| titanium-nitride-oxide coated stent versus bare-metal stent | |||
| TINOX, 2005 | titanium-nitride-oxide coated stents versus stainless steel stents of similar design | open Follow-up duration: 6 mo Switzerlanf, Germany | |
| TMR versus medical treatment | |||
| Aaberge, 2000 | transmyocardial revascularization with CO2-laser versus continued optimal medical treatment | patients with refractory angina not eligible for conventional revascularization | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Norway |
| Allen, 1999 | transmyocardial revascularization versus medical therapy alone | patients with medically refractory class IV angina and coronary disease that could not be treated with percutaneous or surgical revascularization | open Follow-up duration: 1 y US |
| ATLANTIC (Burkhoff), 1999 | Transmyocardial revascularisation versus medical treatment alone | patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society Angina (CCSA) score III or IV, reversible ischaemia, and incomplete response to other therapies | open Follow-up duration: 1 y US |
| Frazier, 1999 | transmyocardial revascularization versus continued medical treatment | patients with end-stage coronary artery disease | open Follow-up duration: 12 months (4y) US |
| Gray, 2003 | percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization versus medical therapy alone | with stable angina pectoris (class III or IV) who were unsuitable for conventional revascularization and had evidence of reversible ischemia by thallium-201 scintigraphy, ejection fraction of > or =25%, and myocardial wall thickness > or =8 mm | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| Huikeshoven, 2003 | XeCl excimer transmyocardial laser revascularization versus optimal cardiac medication | open Follow-up duration: 1y | |
| March, 1999 | Transmyocardial laser revascularization versus continued medical management | patients with symptomatic end-stage coronary artery disease | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| PACIFIC, 2000 | Percutaneous transmyocardial laser revascularisation versus medical treatment only | patients with reversible ischaemia of Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class III or IV and incomplete response to other therapies | open Follow-up duration: 12 months US, UK |
| Salem, 2004 | percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization versus optimal medical therapy | patients with stable angina pectoris (class III or IV) not amenable to conventional revascularization and with evidence of reversible ischemia, ejection fraction >/=25%, and myocardial wall thickness >/=8 mm | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 months Norway |
| Schofield, 1999 | Transmyocardial laser revascularisation versus medical management alone | patients with refractory angina | open Follow-up duration: 1 y |
| Stone, 2002 | percutaneous transmyocardial revascularization versus maximal medical therapy | patients with class III or IV angina caused by one or more chronically occluded native coronary arteries in which a percutaneous coronary intervention had failed | single blind (patient) Follow-up duration: 6 months US |
| van der Sloot, 2004 | XeCl excimer transmyocardial laser revascularization versus maximal medication | patients with refractory angina | open Follow-up duration: 12 months the Netherlands |
| TMR versus placebo | |||
| Leon (high dose), 2005 | high-dose myocardial laser channels versus placebo (sham procedure) | patients with severe angina | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months US |
| Leon (low dose), 2005 | low-dose myocardial laser channels versus placebo (sham procedure) | patients with severe angina | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months US |
| TMR versus thoracic sympathectomy | |||
| Galiñanes, 2004 | Transmyocardial laser revascularization by holmium: yttrium aluminum garnet laser versus thoracic sympathectomy | patients with nonrevascularizable coronary arteries and intractable angina | open Follow-up duration: 42 months |
| TMR+CABG versus CABG | |||
| Allen, 2000 | coronary bypass of suitable vessels plus transmyocardial revascularization to areas not graftable versus coronary bypass alone with nongraftable areas left unrevascularized | patients whose standard of care was coronary artery bypass grafting and who had one or more ischemic areas not amenable to bypass grafting | single blind |
| Loubani, 2003 | coronary artery bypass grafting plus transmyocardial laser revascularization with a holmium:YAG (yttrium-aluminum-garnet) laser to nongraftable areas versus coronary artery bypass grafting | Patients who had elective coronary artery bypass with one or more nongraftable coronary arteries | open Follow-up duration: 36 months UK |
| Zhao, 2006 | transmyocardial laser revascularization (holmium: YAG) combined with off-pump coronary artery bypass versus off-pump coronary artery bypass | patients with diffusely diseased target vessels | open Follow-up duration: 3.4y China |
| vascular endothelial growth factor versus placebo | |||
| VIVA (Henry), 2003 | intracoronary and intravenous infusions of recombinant human vascular endothelial growth factor protein (rhVEGF) versus placebo | patients with stable exertional angina, unsuitable for standard revascularization | double blind Follow-up duration: 12à days |
| VEGF gene transfer versus control | |||
| REVASC (Stewart), 2006 | AdVEGF121 gene transfer with epicardial injection at minithoracotomypj versus control | patients with severe angina due to coronary artery disease and no conventional options for revascularization | open |
| warfarin versus placebo | |||
| WARIS, 1990 | warfarin versus placebo | patients who had recovered from acute myocardial infarction (mean interval from the onset of symptoms to randomization, 27 days) | double-blind Follow-up duration: 37 months |
| zotarolimus eluting stent versus bare-metal stent | |||
| ENDEAVOR II, 2006 | AVE Zotarolimus-Eluting Driver versus Driver | single de novo native coronary artery stenosis | double-blind Follow-up duration: 12 months worldwide |
| zotarolimus eluting stent versus everolimus eluting stent | |||
| RESOLUTE All comers, 2010 NCT00617084.) | zotarolimus-eluting stent versus everolimus-eluting stent (Xience) | adult patients with chronic, stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, including myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation | open Follow-up duration: 12 months (5y) |
| TWENTE, 2012 NCT01066650 | zotarolimus-eluting stent versus everolimus-eluting stent | "real-world" patients | single (patient-blinded) Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| zotarolimus eluting stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent | |||
| ENDEAVOR IV, 2009 NCT00217269 | zotarolimus-eluting stent (Endeavor) versus paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus) | single de novo lesions in native coronary arteries with a reference vessel diameter of 2.5-3.5 mm | open Follow-up duration: mean 36 mo US |
| ZEST (vs PES), 2009 NCT00418067 | zotarolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents | Patients with coronary artery disease | NA Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| ZEST AMI (vs PES), 2009 NCT00422565 | zotarolimus-eluting stent (Endeavor) versus paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Liberté) | Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients (STEMI)requiring primary angioplasty with symptom onset <= 12 hours | open Follow-up duration: 1 year (mean) Korea |
| ZoMaxx I, 2008 | ZoMaxx zotarolimus-eluting stent versus Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent | patients with single de novo coronary lesions and with lesion length 10-30 mm and reference vessel diameter 2.5-3.5 mm | open Follow-up duration: 9 months |
| zotarolimus eluting stent versus sirolimus eluting stent | |||
| ENDEAVOR III, 2006 NCT00217256 | ABT-578 coated Endeavor versus Cypher | single de novo lesions in native coronary arteries 2.5-3.5 mm in diameter | open Follow-up duration: 12 months (and 24 months) US |
| PROTECT, 2012 NCT00476957 | Medtronic Endeavor Zotarolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System versus Cordis Cypher Sirolimus-eluting Coronary Stent | unselected patients (patients 18 years or older who were undergoing stenting for elective, unplanned, or emergency procedures in native coronary arteries) | open-label |
| SORT-OUT-3, 2010 NCT00660478 | Zotarolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) | Patients With Coronary Artery Disease undergoing PCI for any indication | open Follow-up duration: 9 months (18 mo,3yrs) |
| ZEST (vs SES), 2009 NCT00418067 | zotarolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents | Patients with coronary artery disease | Open Follow-up duration: 1 year Korea |
| ZEST AMI (vs SES), 2009 NCT00422565 | zotarolimus-eluting stent (Endeavor) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher) | Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients (STEMI)requiring primary angioplasty with symptom onset <= 12 hours | open Follow-up duration: 1 year (mean) Korea |
-
About
-
Browse pathology
|
treatment
-
Site map
-
Credits
Made with in Lyon
-
Contact us
-
Privacy policy
-
