Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology

Advanced search


Full Text:


Change of the status of innovative technologies depending on the received evidences is considered. Examples reflecting the initiation of interest in the new technology of treatment, the transition from innovation to standard therapies, as well as the weakening of interest in the previously introduced technology due to disappointing results of clinical trials on evaluation of its effectiveness are presented.

About the Authors

S. R. Gilyarevskiy
Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education
Russian Federation

Barricadnaya ul. 2/1, Moscow, 123995 Russia

M. V. Golshmid
Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education
Russian Federation

Barricadnaya ul. 2/1, Moscow, 123995 Russia

I. M. Kuz'mina
N.V. Sklifosovsky Research Institute of Emergency Medicine
Russian Federation
Bolshaya Sukharevskaya pl. 3, Moscow, 129010 Russia


1. Anker S.D., Coats A.J., Cristian G., et al. A prospective comparison of alginate-hydrogel with standard medical therapy to determine impact on functional capacity and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced heart failure (AUGMENT-HF trial). Eur Heart J 2015 Jun 16. [Epub ahead of print]

2. Holmes D.R., Reddy V.Y., Turi Z.G., et al. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, a randomized non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2009;374:534-42.

3. Reddy V.Y., Doshi S.K., Sievert H., et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation: 2.3 year follow-up of the PROTECT AF (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) trial. Circulation 2013;127:720-9.

4. Reddy V.Y., Holmes D., Doshi S.K., et al. Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: results from PROTECT AF and the Continued Access Registry. Circulation 2011;123:417-24.

5. Holmes D.R., Kar S., Price M.J., et al. Prospective randomized evaluation for the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:1-12.

6. Reddy V.Y., Sievert H., Halperin J., et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312:1988-98.

7. Gangireddy S.R., Halperin J.L., Fuster V., Reddy V.Y. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: an assessment of net clinical benefit. Eur Heart J 2012;33:2700-8.

8. Blackshear J.L., Odell J.A. Appendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillation. Ann Thorac Surg 1996;61:755-9.

9. Reddy V.Y., Mobius-Winkler S., Miller M.A., et al. Left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device in patients with a contraindication for oral anticoagulation: the ASAP study (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study with WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology). J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:2551-6.

10. Fountain R.B., Holmes D.R., Chandrasekaran K., et al. The PROTECT AF (WATCHMAN left atrial appendage system for embolic PROTECTion in patients with atrial fibrillation) trial. Am Heart J 2006;15:956-61.

11. Lewalter T., Kanagaratnam P., Schmidt B., et al. Ischaemic stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk: opportunities and challenges for percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion. Europace 2014;16:626-30.

12. Bajaj N.S., Parashar A., Agarwal S., et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prophylaxis in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a systemic review and analysis of observational studies. J Am Coll Caridol Intv 2014;7: 296-304.

13. Holmes D.R. Jr, Doshi S.K., Kar S., et al. Left Atrial Appendage Closure as an Alternative to Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015 ;65:2614-23.

14. Mismetti P., Laporte S., Pellerin O., et al. Effect of a retrievable inferior vena cava filter plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015;313:1627-35.

15. Athanasoulis C.A., Kaufman J.A., Halpern E.F., et al. Inferior vena caval filters: review of a 26-year single-center clinical experience. Radiology 2000;216:54-66.

16. Stein P.D., Kayali F., Olson R.E. Twenty-one-year trends in the use of inferior vena cava filters. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:1541-5.

17. Hammond C.J., Bakshi D.R., Currie R.J., et al. Audit of the use of IVC filters in the United Kingdom: experience from 3 centres over 12 years. Clin Radiol 2009;64:502-10.

18. Stein P.D., Matta F., Hull R.D. Increasing use of vena cava filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2011;124:655-61.

19. Spencer F.A., Bates S.M., Goldberg R.J., et al. A population-based study of inferior vena cava filters in patients with acute venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1456-62.

20. Kearon C., Akl E.A., Comerota A.J., et al.; American College of Chest Physicians. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines [published correction appears in Chest 2012;142:1698-1704]. Chest 2012;141(2 suppl):e419S-494S.

21. Torbicki A., Perrier A., Konstantinides S., et al.; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG). Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2008;29:2276-315.

22. Kaufman J.A., Kinney T.B., Streiff M.B., et al. Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: report from the Society of Interventional Radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006;17:449-59.

23. Caplin D.M., Nikolic B., Kalva S.P., et al.; Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee. Quality improvement guidelines for the performance of inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011;22:1499-506.

24. Jaff M.R., McMurtry M.S., Archer S.L., et al.; American Heart Association Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation; American Heart Association Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; American Heart Association Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology. Management of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism, iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2011;123:1788-830.

25. Decousus H., Leizorovicz A., Parent F., et al. A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis: Pré vention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998;338:409-15.

26. PREPIC Study Group. Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation 2005;112:416-22.

27. Ansell J. Vena cava filters: do we know all that we need to know? Circulation 2005;112:298-9.

For citation:

Gilyarevskiy S.R., Golshmid M.V., Kuz'mina I.M. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN CARDIOLOGY: FROM SURPRISE TO HABIT OR FORGETFULNESS. Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2015;11(4):404-412. (In Russ.)

Views: 354

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 1819-6446 (Print)
ISSN 2225-3653 (Online)