Skip Navigation


European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on March 22, 2006
European Heart Journal 2006 27(9):1007-1009; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi828
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
27/9/1007    most recent
ehi828v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in EHJ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nordrehaug, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Salem, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nordrehaug, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Salem, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The European Society of Cardiology 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Treatment of chronic refractory angina pectoris—light at the end of the tunnel?

Jan Erik Nordrehaug* and Mohamed Salem

Department of Heart Disease, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021 Bergen, Norway

* Corresponding author. Tel: +47 55972172; fax: +47 55975150. E-mail address: jan.nordrehaug@helse-bergen.no

This editorial refers to ‘An open label, single-centre, randomized trial of spinal cord stimulation vs. percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization in patients with refractory angina pectoris: the SPIRIT trial’{dagger} by D. McNab et al., on page 1048

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Despite increasing number of coronary interventions over recent years, there is still a considerable number of patients suffering from chronic refractory angina pectoris. The volume of no option patients is not exactly known, but has been suggested to be 30 per million inhabitants per year; other estimates are 2.5–5% of coronary angiography procedures.1,2 The group of no option patients includes those who have angina despite optimal medical therapy; they may not have been offered PCI or CABG because of severe diffuse coronary artery disease, or they who continue to experience severe angina after CABG, PCI, or both.

A considerable number of therapeutic strategies have been investigated to treat severe chronic angina, such as transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS), left stellate ganglion blockade (LSGB), endoscopic thoracoscopic symathectomy (ETS), thoracic epidural anaesthesia (TEDA), external balloon counter pulsation (EECP), stem cell therapy, and finally myocardial laser revascularization by surgical (TMR) or percutaneous (PMR) . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in EHJ:

An open label, single-centre, randomized trial of spinal cord stimulation vs. percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization in patients with refractory angina pectoris: the SPiRiT trial
Duncan McNab, Sadia N. Khan, Linda D. Sharples, Judy Y. Ryan, Carol Freeman, Noreen Caine, Sue Tait, Ian Hardy, and Peter M. Schofield
EHJ 2006 27: 1048-1053. [Abstract] [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
S. Banai, S. Ben Muvhar, K. H. Parikh, A. Medina, H. Sievert, A. Seth, J. Tsehori, Y. Paz, A. Sheinfeld, and G. Keren
Coronary sinus reducer stent for the treatment of chronic refractory angina pectoris: a prospective, open-label, multicenter, safety feasibility first-in-man study.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 1, 2007; 49(17): 1783 - 1789.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]