Comparison of slow oscillating versus fast balloon inflation strategies for coronary angioplasty

Previous studies suggest that slow and/or oscillating balloon inflation during coronary angioplasty may decrease the incidence of coronary dissection and improve clinical outcomes. To compare the effect of slow oscillating versus conventional fast inflation techniques on the incidence of severe coronary dissection during angioplasty, 622 patients were randomized to slow oscillating inflation versus fast inflation. Angiographic outcomes of the procedures and in-hospital clinical events were recorded. The primary end point of severe (type C, D, E, F) dissection occurred in 7.7% of patients undergoing slow oscillation and 6.6% of patients undergoing fast inflation (p = 0.87). Major complications (death, urgent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, stroke, abrupt closure, or Q-wave myocardial infarction) occurred in 4.7% of patients undergoing slow oscillation and 3.5% of patients undergoing fast inflation (p = 0.45). The 2 inflation strategies did not differ in the pressure at which the balloon achieved full expansion, angiographic success rate, residual stenosis, and incidence of all minor and/or major complications. We conclude that there is no benefit of slow oscillating inflation over routine fast inflation in angioplasty. Slow oscillating inflation did not dilate lesions at lower pressures, decrease the incidence of dissection or severe dissection, or reduce the incidence of adverse clinical outcomes.

Economic implications of the prophylactic use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in the setting of acute myocardial infarction. The Randomized IABP Study Group. Intraaortic Balloon Pump

Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) has been shown to improve coronary artery patency and reduce the rates of recurrent myocardial ischemia and its sequelae in selected patients when used within 24 hours of acute myocardial infarction. The economic implications of prophylactic IABP use are unknown. We obtained hospital bills for 102 patients enrolled in the Randomized IABP Trial (56%) and converted charges to costs using each hospital's Medicare cost report. In-hospital costs for patients who had 48 hours of IABP were compared with those of patients who did not. The costs of angiographic and clinical complications were determined. Small differences in clinical and angiographic characteristics existed between patients in the economic substudy and the overall population, but overall angiographic and clinical outcomes were comparable. Costs for patients who had IABP versus control patients were similar: mean $22,357 +/- $14,369 versus $19,211 +/- $8,414, median (25th and 75th percentiles) $17,903 ($15,787, $22,147) versus $17,913 ($15,144, $21,433), p = 0.45. Hospital costs were higher with the development of recurrent ischemia: mean $23,125 +/- $7,690 versus $20,416 +/- $12,449, median $21,069 ($17,896, $26,885) versus $17,492 ($14,892, $20,998) p = 0.02. Patients who had an adverse clinical event (death, stroke, reinfarction, and emergency revascularization) also had higher hospital costs: mean $25,598 +/- $10,024 versus $19,790 +/- $12,045, median $21,877 ($18,380, $28,049) versus $17,364 ($14,773, $20,779), p = 0.002. The prophylactic use of IABP in patients at high risk of infarct artery reocclusion within 24 hours of acute myocardial infarction provides sustained clinical benefit without substantially increasing hospital costs.