Talk:Angioplasty: Difference between revisions

Thanks for the Image, Bleiglass. Jfdwolff 19:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion/request: Would it be possible to have a section on the page that summarises Angioplasty in 'lay' terms? I'm finding the article as it stands now a bit too complicated to follow, as it seems to make heavy use of specific terminology.

Above posted by User:217.169.18.208 on 14:18, 10 May 2006

Rewrite

I've just spent an hour trying to clean up this article. It is unreferenced, it was poorly written, and frankly, it reads like a Cordis or Guidant commercial. If one of their marketing people wrote this article, they ought to be terminated, because they don't know about what they speak. And if a Cardiologist wrote this article, remind me to ask to have his license checked. This article needs work. Orangemarlin 07:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Percutaneous coronary intervention

I did some restructuring of the Coronary angioplasty section, hopefully to the better. But perhaps this section should be integrated in the percutaneous coronary intervention entry instead? Terjen 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This article is far from cleaned up. Let me read the other article and give my humble opinion. Orangemarlin 03:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs a bit more work for sure.--Filll 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article about this topic

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17800298/wid/11915773?GT1=9145

(article removed, since it was linked to above and is likely copyright vio)

Just a note, the study that the article refers to is a study on patients with stable angina only. The recommendations for these patients is to use drugs as first line therapy. Stenting is sometimes useful to relieve symptoms in those patients who don't get relief with drugs alone. Stenting is not used to prevent death or heart attack in this particular group of patients. So really the study that recently came out only reinforces current recommendations, I'm not sure why it's getting so much hype in the news and on wall street. Now, do patients get stents or procedures they don't need? Probably, but thats a different issue altogether.

Agree. First of all, if we are to refer to the trial, we should refer to the trial. Not a popular press piece that is made for sound bites. Second, if this goes anywhere, it should be in percutaneous coronary intervention (maybe in a section on indications for PCI?), not here. Ksheka 13:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Modified herpes virus keeps arteries 'free-flowing' following procedures"

“This study is an important step in the application of genetically engineered herpes simplex viruses for treatment of vascular disease," Skelly added. "It suggests that genetically engineered viruses may have a significant impact on the outcomes of angioplasty performed in humans. Human trials would be the next step to test this theory.” [1] Brian Pearson 03:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)