Steven R. Bailey
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Steven R. Bailey.
Circulation | 2011
Glenn N. Levine; Eric R. Bates; James C. Blankenship; Steven R. Bailey; John A. Bittl; Bojan Cercek; Charles E. Chambers; Stephen G. Ellis; Robert A. Guyton; Steven M. Hollenberg; Umesh N. Khot; Richard A. Lange; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Issam Moussa; Debabrata Mukherjee; Brahmajee K. Nallamothu; Henry H. Ting; Alice K. Jacobs; Nancy M. Albert; Mark A. Creager; Steven M. Ettinger; Jonathan L. Halperin; Judith S. Hochman; Frederick G. Kushner; E. Magnus Ohman; William G. Stevenson; Clyde W. Yancy
Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Nancy Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA
Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 2011
Glenn N. Levine; Eric R. Bates; James C. Blankenship; Steven R. Bailey; John A. Bittl; Bojan Cercek; Charles E. Chambers; Stephen G. Ellis; Robert A. Guyton; Steven M. Hollenberg; Umesh N. Khot; Richard A. Lange; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Issam Moussa; Debabrata Mukherjee; Brahmajee K. Nallamothu; Henry H. Ting; Alice K. Jacobs; Jeffrey L. Anderson; Nancy M. Albert; Mark A. Creager; Steven M. Ettinger; Jonathan L. Halperin; Judith S. Hochman; Frederick G. Kushner; E. Magnus Ohman; William G. Stevenson; Clyde W. Yancy
The medical profession should play a central role in evaluating the evidence related to drugs, devices, and procedures for the detection, management, and prevention of disease. When properly applied, expert analysis of available data on the benefits and risks of these therapies and procedures can
The New England Journal of Medicine | 1997
M. Savage; John S. Douglas; David L. Fischman; Carl J. Pepine; Spencer B. King; Jeffrey A. Werner; Steven R. Bailey; Paul Overlie; Sarah H. Fenton; Jeffrey A. Brinker; Martin B. Leon; Sheldon Goldberg; Richard R. Heuser; Richard W. Smalling; Robert D. Safian; Michael W. Cleman; Maurice Buchbinder; David Snead; Randal Rake; Sharon Gebhardt
BACKGROUND Treatment of stenosis in saphenous-vein grafts after coronary-artery bypass surgery is a difficult challenge. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of stent placement with those of balloon angioplasty on clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with obstructive disease of saphenous-vein grafts. METHODS A total of 220 patients with new lesions in aortocoronary-venous bypass grafts were randomly assigned to placement of Palmaz-Schatz stents or standard balloon angioplasty. Coronary angiography was performed during the index procedure and six months later. RESULTS As compared with the patients assigned to angioplasty, those assigned to stenting had a higher rate of procedural efficacy, defined as a reduction in stenosis to less than 50 percent of the vessel diameter without a major cardiac complication (92 percent vs. 69 percent, P<0.001), but they had more frequent hemorrhagic complications (17 percent vs. 5 percent, P<0.01). Patients in the stent group had a larger mean (+/-SD) increase in luminal diameter immediately after the procedure (1.92+/-0.30 mm, as compared with 1.21+/-0.37 mm in the angioplasty group; P<0.001) and a greater mean net gain in luminal diameter at six months (0.85+/-0.96 vs. 0.54+/-0.91 mm, P=0.002). Restenosis occurred in 37 percent of the patients in the stent group and in 46 percent of the patients in the angioplasty group (P=0.24). The outcome in terms of freedom from death, myocardial infarction, repeated bypass surgery, or revascularization of the target lesion was significantly better in the stent group (73 percent vs. 58 percent, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS As compared with balloon angioplasty, stenting of selected venous bypass-graft lesions resulted in superior procedural outcomes, a larger gain in luminal diameter, and a reduction in major cardiac events. However, there was no significant benefit in the rate of angiographic restenosis, which was the primary end point of the study.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 2012
David R. Holmes; Michael J. Mack; Sanjay Kaul; Arvind K. Agnihotri; Karen P. Alexander; Steven R. Bailey; John H. Calhoon; Blase A. Carabello; Milind Y. Desai; Fred H. Edwards; Gary S. Francis; Timothy J. Gardner; A. Pieter Kappetein; Jane A. Linderbaum; Chirojit Mukherjee; Debabrata Mukherjee; Catherine M. Otto; Carlos E. Ruiz; Ralph L. Sacco; Donnette Smith; James D. Thomas
Robert A. Harrington, MD, FACC, Chair Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, FACC, Vice Chair Victor A. Ferrari, MD, FACC John D. Fisher, MD, FACC Mario J. Garcia, MD, FACC Timothy J. Gardner, MD, FACC Federico Gentile, MD, FACC Michael F. Gilson, MD, FACC Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, FACC Alice K. Jacobs
Circulation | 2005
Gregg W. Stone; Nicolaus Reifart; Issam Moussa; Angela Hoye; David A. Cox; Antonio Colombo; Donald S. Baim; Paul S. Teirstein; Bradley H. Strauss; Matthew R. Selmon; Gary S. Mintz; Osamu Katoh; Kazuaki Mitsudo; Takahiko Suzuki; Hideo Tamai; Eberhard Grube; Louis Cannon; David E. Kandzari; Mark Reisman; Robert S. Schwartz; Steven R. Bailey; George Dangas; Roxana Mehran; Alexander Abizaid; Jeffrey W. Moses; Martin B. Leon; Patrick W. Serruys
In Part I of this article, the definitions, prevalence, and clinical presentation of chronic total occlusions (CTOs) were reviewed, the histopathology of CTOs was examined, efforts to replicate human CTOs with experimental models were appraised, and the clinical relevance and rationale for CTO revascularization were evaluated.1 In Part II, we summarize the technical approach to and outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of occluded coronary arteries, describe the novel devices and drugs approved and undergoing investigation for CTO recanalization, and conclude with practical perspectives on managing the patient with 1 or more chronic coronary occlusions. ### Patient Selection and Revascularization Strategies PCI of CTOs constitutes as many as 20% of all angioplasty procedures at selected centers,2 although a rate of &10% is more typical,3–6 suggesting that CTO angioplasty is attempted in 50 000 to 100 000 patients per year in the United States. Many more CTOs are present for which PCI is never attempted, representing one of the most common causes for referral to bypass surgery rather than PCI.6–8 Furthermore, a large proportion of patients with CTOs are managed medically, the prognosis of whom may vary depending on the extent of viable myocardium and ischemia, concomitant atherosclerosis in other coronary and noncoronary vascular territories, and other comorbid conditions. The decision to attempt PCI of a CTO (versus continued medical therapy or surgical revascularization) requires an individualized risk/benefit analysis, encompassing clinical, angiographic, and technical considerations. Clinically, the patient’s age, symptom severity, associated comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus and chronic renal insufficiency), and overall functional status are major determinants of treatment strategy. Angiographically, the extent and complexity of coronary artery disease (eg, single-vessel versus multivessel disease, single versus multiple total occlusions, likelihood for complete revascularization), left ventricular function, and the presence and degree of valvular heart disease should be considered. The technical probability of achieving …
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions | 2000
Michael H. Wholey; Mark H. Wholey; Klaus Mathias; Gary S. Roubin; Edward B. Diethrich; Michel Henry; Steven R. Bailey; Patrice Bergeron; Gerry Dorros; Gustave Eles; Peter Gaines; Camilo R. Gomez; Bill Gray; Juan Guimaraens; Randal Higashida; David Sai Wah Ho; Barry T. Katzen; Antonio Kambara; Vijay Kumar; Jean Claude Laborde; Martin B. Leon; Michael Lim; Hugo Londero; Juan E. Mesa; Alejandro Musacchio; Subbarao Myla; Steve Ramee; Adolfo Rodriguez; Kenneth Rosenfield; Noboyuki Sakai
The purpose of this article is to review and update the current status of carotid artery stent placement in the world. Surveys to major interventional centers in Europe, North and South America, and Asia were initially completed in June 1997. Subsequent information from these 24 centers in addition to 12 new centers has been obtained to update the information. The survey asked the various questions regarding the patients enrolled, procedure techniques, and results of carotid stenting, including complications and restenosis. The total number of endovascular carotid stent procedures that have been performed worldwide to date included 5,210 procedures involving 4,757 patients. There was a technical success of 98.4% with 5,129 carotid arteries treated. Complications that occurred during the carotid stent placement or within a 30‐day period following placement were recorded. Overall, there were 134 transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) for a rate of 2.82%. Based on the total patient population, there were 129 minor strokes with a rate of occurrence of 2.72%. The total number of major strokes was 71 for a rate of 1.49%. There were 41 deaths within a 30‐day postprocedure period resulting in a mortality rate of 0.86%. The combined minor and major strokes and procedure‐related death rate was 5.07%. Restenosis rates of carotid stenting have been 1.99% and 3.46% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The rate of neurologic events after stent placement has been 1.42% at 6–12‐month follow‐up. Endovascular stent treatment of carotid artery atherosclerotic disease is growing as an alternative for vascular surgery, especially for patients that are high risk for standard carotid endarterectomy. The periprocedure risks for major and minor strokes and death are generally acceptable at this early stage of development and have not changed significantly since the first survey results. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent. 50:160–167, 2000. ©2000 Wiley–Liss,Inc.
Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography | 2010
Allen J. Taylor; Manuel D. Cerqueira; John McB. Hodgson; Daniel B. Mark; James K. Min; Patrick O'Gara; Geoffrey D. Rubin; Christopher M. Kramer; Daniel S. Berman; Alan S. Brown; Farooq A. Chaudhry; Ricardo C. Cury; Milind Y. Desai; Andrew J. Einstein; Antoinette S. Gomes; Robert A. Harrington; Udo Hoffmann; Rahul K. Khare; John R. Lesser; Christopher McGann; Alan Rosenberg; Robert S. Schwartz; Marc Shelton; Gerald W. Smetana; Sidney C. Smith; Michael J. Wolk; Joseph M. Allen; Steven R. Bailey; Pamela S. Douglas; Robert C. Hendel
The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical scenarios where cardiac computed tomography (CCT) is frequently considered. The present document is an update to the original CCT/cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) appropriateness criteria published in 2006, written to reflect changes in test utilization, to incorporate new clinical data, and to clarify CCT use where omissions or lack of clarity existed in the original criteria (1). The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Ninety-three clinical scenarios were developed by a writing group and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9 to designate appropriate use, inappropriate use, or uncertain use. In general, use of CCT angiography for diagnosis and risk assessment in patients with low or intermediate risk or pretest probability for coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, whereas testing in high-risk patients, routine repeat testing, and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. Use of noncontrast computed tomography (CT) for calcium scoring was rated as appropriate within intermediate- and selected low-risk patients. Appropriate applications of CCT are also within the category of cardiac structural and functional evaluation. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making, performance, and reimbursement policy, and that they will help guide future research.
Circulation | 2011
Glenn N. Levine; Eric R. Bates; James C. Blankenship; Steven R. Bailey; John A. Bittl; Bojan Cercek; Charles E. Chambers; Stephen G. Ellis; Steven M. Hollenberg; Umesh N. Khot; Richard A. Lange; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Issam Moussa; Debabrata Mukherjee; Brahmajee K. Nallamothu; Henry H. Ting; Alice K. Jacobs; Jeffrey L. Anderson; Nancy M. Albert; Mark A. Creager; Steven M. Ettinger; Jonathan L. Halperin; Judith S. Hochman; Frederick G. Kushner; E. Magnus Ohman; William G. Stevenson; Clyde W. Yancy
Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Nancy Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA
Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 2011
Pamela S. Douglas; Mario J. Garcia; David E. Haines; Wyman W. Lai; Warren J. Manning; Michael H. Picard; Donna Polk; Michael Ragosta; R. Parker Ward; Rory B. Weiner; Steven R. Bailey; Peter Alagona; Jeffrey L. Anderson; Jeanne M. DeCara; Rowena J Dolor; Reza Fazel; John A. Gillespie; Paul A. Heidenreich; Luci K. Leykum; Joseph E. Marine; Gregory Mishkel; Patricia A. Pellikka; Gilbert Raff; Krishnaswami Vijayaraghavan; Neil J. Weissman; Katherine C. Wu; Michael J. Wolk; Robert C. Hendel; Christopher M. Kramer; James K. Min
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1128 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1128
Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 2014
Michael J. Wolk; Steven R. Bailey; John U. Doherty; Pamela S. Douglas; Robert C. Hendel; Christopher M. Kramer; James K. Min; Manesh R. Patel; Lisa Rosenbaum; Leslee J. Shaw; Raymond F. Stainback; Joseph M. Allen
The American College of Cardiology Foundation along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical presentations for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) to consider use of stress testing and anatomic diagnostic procedures. This document reflects an updating of the prior Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) published for radionuclide imaging (RNI), stress echocardiography (Echo), calcium scoring, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and invasive coronary angiography for SIHD. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine the AUC on a frequent basis. A major innovation in this document is the rating of tests side by side for the same indication. The side-by-side rating removes any concerns about differences in indication or interpretation stemming from prior use of separate documents for each test. However, the ratings were explicitly not competitive rankings due to the limited availability of comparative evidence, patient variability, and range of capabilities available in any given local setting. The indications for this review are limited to the detection and risk assessment of SIHD and were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Eighty clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate rating panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate use following a modified Delphi process following the recently updated AUC development methodology. The use of some modalities of testing in the initial evaluation of patients with symptoms representing ischemic equivalents, newly diagnosed heart failure, arrhythmias, and syncope was generally found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate, except in cases where low pre-test probability or low risk limited the benefit of most testing except exercise electrocardiogram (ECG). Testing for the evaluation of new or worsening symptoms following a prior test or procedure was found to be Appropriate. In addition, testing was found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate for patients within 90 days of an abnormal or uncertain prior result. Pre-operative testing was rated Appropriate or May Be Appropriate only for patients who had poor functional capacity and were undergoing vascular or intermediate risk surgery with 1 or more clinical risk factors or an organ transplant. The exercise ECG was suggested as an Appropriate test for cardiac rehabilitation clearance or for exercise prescription purposes. Testing in asymptomatic patients was generally found to be Rarely Appropriate, except for calcium scoring and exercise testing in intermediate and high-risk individuals and either stress or anatomic imaging in higher-risk individuals, which were all rated as May Be Appropriate. All modalities of follow-up testing after a prior test or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 2 years and within 5 years after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in the absence of new symptoms were rated Rarely Appropriate. Pre-operative testing for patients with good functional capacity, prior normal testing within 1 year, or prior to low-risk surgery also were found to be Rarely Appropriate. Imaging for an exercise prescription or prior to the initiation of cardiac rehabilitation was Rarely Appropriate except for cardiac rehabilitation clearance for heart failure patients.
Collaboration
Dive into the Steven R. Bailey's collaboration.
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
View shared research outputs