Aims A randomized trial was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of a laser guidewire, in the treatment of chronic coronary occlusions. Methods and ResultsIn 18 European centres, 303 patients with a chronic coronary occlusion were randomized to treatment with either the laser guidewire (n=144) or conventional guidewires (mechanical guidewire, n=159). The primary end-point of the study was treatment success, defined as reaching the true lumen distal to the occlusion by the allocated wire within 30 min of fluoroscopic time: laser guidewire vs mechanical guidewire; 52·8% (n=76) vs 47·2% (n=75), P=0·33. Serious adverse events following the initial guidewire attempt were 0% (laser guidewire) and 0·6% (mechanical guidewire), respectively. Angioplasty (performed following successful guidewire crossing) was successful in 179 patients (91%, laser guidewire n=79, mechanical guidewire n=100), followed by stent implantation in 149 (79%). At the 6-month angiographic followup, the difference in binary restenosis rate (laser guidewire vs mechanical guidewire; 45·5% vs 38·3 %, P=0·72) or reocclusion rate (25·8% vs 16·1%, P=0·15) did not reach statistical significance. At 1, 6 and 12 months, angina and event-free survival were 69%, 35% and 24% (laser guidewire) vs 74%, 40% and 31% (mechanical guidewire). ConclusionAlthough laser guidewire technology was safe, the increase in crossing success did not reach statistical significance.

Several methods can be used for the intraoperative assessment of residual mitral regurgitation (MR) following reconstruction of the mitral valve. The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of two of these methods: left ventricular filling of the arrested heart with saline (LVF) and intraoperative transesophageal Doppler echocardiography (TEE). Reliability was assessed by comparing LVF and TEE to postoperative left ventricular angiography (LVA) in 27 patients. LVF, TEE and LVA grading of MR was 0-4. Correlations, as measured by the Kappa statistic, were as follows: LVF-LVA: K = 0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06-0.59), TEE-LVA: K = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.20-0.77), LVF-TEE: K = 0.43 (95% CI: 0.20-0.67). Considering LVF and TEE as predictors of LVA gradings above 2, sensitivities were 0.4 and 0.6, respectively. Specificities were 1.0 for each method. In conclusion, we found TEE in the beating heart not to be significantly more reliable in the prediction of residual MR than LVF in the flaccid heart.