Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of studies used for primary endpoints

From: Clinical outcomes meta-analysis: measuring subendocardial perfusion and efficacy of transmyocardial laser revascularization with nuclear imaging

Study name Groups Sample size (n) Laser type Imaging Duration (months)
Aaberge 2001 [27] TMR vs MM 100 CO2 SPECT/MUGA 12
Burns 2001 [26] TMR vs MM 188 CO2 SPECT 12
Frazier 1999 [29] TMR vs MM 192 CO2 SPECT 12
Aaberge 2000 [11] TMR vs MM 100 CO2 MUGA 12
Allen 1999 [33] TMR vs MM 275 Ho:YAG SPECT 12
Burkhoff 1999 [31] TMR vs MM 182 Ho:YAG SPECT 12
Hughes 1999 [21]a TMR vs SHAM 10 Ho:YAG PET 6
Hughes 2000a [22]a TMR vs SHAM 10 CO2 PET 6
Hughes 2000b [22]a TMR vs SHAM 10 Ho:YAG PET 6
Tio 2004 [28] TMR vs MM 25 Ho:YAG PET 3
Leon 2005 [20] TMR vs SHAM 200 Ho:YAG SPECT 6
Diegeler 1998 [24] TMR vs CABG/TMR 28 Ho:YAG SPECT 3
Schneider 2001 [25] TMR vs CABG/TMR 43 Ho:YAG SPECT 12
Schofield 1999 [34] TMR vs MM 188 CO2 SPECT 12
Hughes 2002 [23]a TMR vs SHAM 10 Ho:YAG PET 6
March 1999 [19] TMR vs MM 192 CO2 SPECT 12
  1. Sample sizes represented are at baseline
  2. aHughes papers ([21,22,23]) used a porcine model
  3. TMR transmyocardial revascularization, MM medical management, CABG coronary artery bypass graft