Comparison of coronary angioplasty with compliant and noncompliant balloons (the angioplasty compliance trial)

Comparison of clinical complications, angiographic results, and device usage of coronary angioplasty using low- and high-compliance balloons

“…They strengthen the conclusion of a recent report by Safian et al [11] that for conventional balloon angioplasty with high-and low-compliant balloons, quantitative angiographic results, angiographic and clinical complications, and overall procedural outcome are similar. The fact that the two types of balloons used in the present study only differed in the balloon material used but were otherwise exactly identical in construction, thus obviating possibly confounding differences in crossability or trackability, only augments the validity of the observed results.…”

Influence of balloon design, plaque material composition, and balloon sizing on acute post angioplasty outcomes: An implicit finite element analysis

“…PTA, which is the minimally‐invasive option, is a favored alternative to invasive treatments in order to avoid complications experienced with conventional surgeries, 2 specifically for patients at higher risks of surgical morbidity and mortality 3 . Treatment via PTA consists of inserting percutaneously a balloon catheter within the diseased vessel region, followed by inflating the balloon in order to compress/damage the plaque and enlarge the vessel lumen 4–6 . Stenting might be subsequently required for some treated cases.…”

PTCA in angulated segments: Effects of balloon material, balloon length, and inflation sequence on straightening forces in an in vitro model

“…In three nonrandomized retrospective studies [6,8] and one randomized prospective study [9] of the relationship among balloon material, coronary dissection, and clinical complications, no significant difference between these variables was found. Raymenants and co-workers [ 101 recently reported a study of 1,650 patients in whom use of highly compliant balloons was associated with slightly lower dissection rate (17.4% vs. 19%) and significant reduction in the rate of clinical complications (4.2% vs. 8.1%).…”