作者: Duncan C. McNab , Peter M. Schofield
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000016122.19950.E9
关键词:
摘要: To the Editor: In their discussion of 5-year follow-up results after transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMR), Horvath et al1 made a number statements that we believe may be misleading. compared improvement in exercise time TMR to from another trial used percutaneous myocardial (PMR).2 This comparison unsound for reasons, including marked difference baseline characteristics patient populations 2 trials (26% Canadian Cardiovascular Score [CCS] class III angina and 74% CCS IV versus 61% 39% PMR trial). Interestingly, study with most similar (73% …