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.

Aims: Refractory angina pectoris leads to significant morbidity. Treatment options include percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization (PMR) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS). This study was designed to compare these two treatments.

Trial-based cost-utility comparison of percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation and continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris.

This study examined from a health service perspective whether percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation (PMR) plus standard medical management is cost-effective when compared with standard medical management alone in the treatment of refractory angina. This involved a cost-utility analysis using patient-specific data from a single-centre, randomised, controlled trial carried out in the United Kingdom. Of 73 patients diagnosed as having refractory angina and not suitable for conventional forms of revascularisation, 36 were randomised to PMR plus medical management and 37 to medical management alone.

Percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization in patients with refractory angina pectoris.

This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization (PMLR). Seventy-three patients with stable angina pectoris (class III or IV) who were unsuitable for conventional revascularization and had evidence of reversible ischemia by thallium-201 scintigraphy, ejection fraction of > or =25%, and myocardial wall thickness > or =8 mm were randomized to optimal medical therapy alone (n = 37) or PMLR with optimal medical therapy (n = 36). Patients were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months.