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

Table 1 Characteristics of studies used for primary endpoints

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

Sample sizes represented are at baseline
^aHughes papers ([21,22,23]) used a porcine model
TMR transmyocardial revascularization, MM medical management, CABG coronary artery bypass graft

ISSN: 1749-8090