Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

The content of these European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines has been published for personal and educational use only. No commercial use is authorized. No part of the ESC Guidelines may be translated or reproduced in any form without written permission from the ESC. Permission can be obtained upon submission of a written request to Oxford University Press, the publisher of the European Heart Journal and the party authorized to handle such permissions on behalf of the ESC. Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were arrived at after careful consideration of the available evidence at the time they were written. Health professionals are encouraged to take them fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. The guidelines do not, however, override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate decisions in the circumstances of the individual patients, in consultation with that patient, and where appropriate and necessary the patient's guardian or carer. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the rules and regulations applicable to drugs and devices at the time of prescription.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were arrived at after careful consideration of the available evidence at the time they were written. Health professionals are encouraged to take them fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. The guidelines do not, however, override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate decisions in the circumstances of the individual patients, in consultation with that patient, and where appropriate and necessary the patient's guardian or carer. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the rules and regulations applicable to drugs and devices at the time of prescription.

No abstract

Background-Early clinical studies demonstrated the feasibility of local paclitaxel delivery in reducing restenosis after treatment of de novo coronary lesions in small patient populations. Methods and Results-We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of 536 patients at 38 medical centers evaluating slow-release (SR) and moderate-release (MR) formulations of a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent (TAXUS) for revascularization of single, primary lesions in native coronary arteries. Cohort I compared TAXUS-SR with control stents, and Cohort II compared TAXUS-MR with a second control group. The primary end point was 6-month percent in-stent net volume obstruction measured by intravascular ultrasound. Secondary end points were 6-month angiographic restenosis and 6-and 12-month incidence of major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. At 6 months, percent net volume obstruction within the stent was significantly lower for TAXUS stents (7.9% SR and 7.8% MR) than for respective controls (23.2% and 20.5%; PϽ0.0001 for both). This corresponded with a reduction in angiographic restenosis from 17.9% to 2.3% in the SR cohort (PϽ0.0001) and from 20.2% to 4.7% in the MR cohort (Pϭ0.0002). The incidence of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months was significantly lower (Pϭ0.0192) in the TAXUS-SR (10.9%) and TAXUS-MR (9.9%) groups than in controls (22.0% and 21.4%, respectively), predominantly because of a significant reduction in repeat revascularization of the target lesion in TAXUS-treated patients. Conclusions-Compared