Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of studies used for secondary 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 Outcome measure
Frazier 1999 [29] TMR vs MM 19 CO2 survival, angina reduction, re-admission
Frazier 2004 [49] CABG vs TMR/CABG 44 CO2 survival, angina reduction
Allen 2000 [30] CABG vs TMR/CABG 263 Ho:YAG survival
Allen 2004 [51] CABG vs TMR/CABG 218 Ho:YAG survival
Aaberge 2000 [11] TMR vs MM 100 CO2 survival, angina reduction, re-admission
Allen 1999 [33] TMR vs MM 275 Ho:YAG survival, angina reduction
Burkhoff 1999 [31] TMR vs MM 182 Ho:YAG survival, angina reduction, re-admission
Leon 2005 [20] TMR vs SHAM 200 Ho:YAG survival, angina reduction
Diegeler 1998 [24] TMR vs TMR/CABG 40 Ho:YAG survival
Schneider 2001 [25] TMR vs TMR/CABG 68 Ho:YAG angina reduction
Schofield 1999 [34] TMR vs MM 188 CO2 survival, angina reduction
  1. N numbers represented are at baseline of study
  2. Angina reduction is a reduction of at least two or more CCS classes
  3. TMR transmyocardial revascularization, MM medical management, CABG coronary artery bypass graft