Like your local educational TV or radio station, our Forum relies on help from visitors like you. The grant funding we receive does not fully cover our costs; please consider making a recurring monthly contribution or a one-time donation.
Click
here for more information about the following ads
Current Postings on This Page (2):
Miflotzet in London -- It's not so much a question
of atherectomy versus stenting, because these days, a stent is
normally used after atherectomy is done. The idea with atherectomy is to
remove the bulk of tissue that is causing the blockage. The
RotaBlator is a unique type of atherectomy device, optimized to remove hard
calcium --
it can literally shave off the shell of an egg without tearing the thin membrane
holding the yolk! Once the "offending" tissue is removed, a stent can be
implanted and will conform to the arterial wall more easily, since much of
the bulky
tissue is gone. There have been mixed results for atherectomy which was utilized
more, by the way, in the days before stents. The "Silver Hawk" is basically
an adaptation of the coronary atherectomy device, the AtheroCath, invented
by John Simpson and marketed by Guidant starting in the late 80s. But
it was improved and optimized for work in the leg arteries only. It's not
"new", however, having been around almost a decade. In fact, we
wrote about it six years ago. The results also are mixed.
For peripheral (leg) closures, the latest device that has shown undeniably
good results is the Zilver drug-coated stent, made by Cook. Angioplasty.Org Staff,Angioplasty.Org, February 10, 2011
How does atherectomy
compare to stenting in effectiveness and risk? What makes the cardiologist
decide to use one over the other? Are are all interventionists trained
to use the Rotablator/laser to trim away plaque? What are the reports on
the new "Silver Hawk" which shaves the plaque, captures the shavings in
a nosecone and then withdraws it out of the body? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherectomy Miflotzet, London, England, February 10, 2011