Angina class improved similarly in both groups and was not significantly different at 12 months for TMR + CABG versus CABG alone [WMD, 0.01; 95% CI, –0.20 to 0.23]. At 5 years, there was significantly greater angina improvement in angina class with TMR + CABG versus CABG alone; however, the absolute difference was small [WMD, –0.21; 95% CI, –0.39 to –0.03]. Patients with continuing severe angina (class III or IV) at 1 year [OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.23] and at 4 to 5 years [OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.007 to 13.28] were not significantly different between groups but were reported in only two randomized trials. The proportion of patients achieving ≥2 angina class improvement was not reported in the studies of TMR + CABG versus CABG.
In randomized trials, all-cause mortality at 30 days was significantly decreased with TMR + CABG versus CABG alone [OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.77]; however, survival at 1 year [OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.10] and at 4 to 5 years [OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.72] was not significantly different in randomized trials. Nonrandomized trials, on the other hand, suggested decreased survival for TMR + CABG versus CABG at 30 days; however, this was largely weighted by the results from the STS database, which showed that higher-risk patients with more diffuse coronary artery disease were selectively chosen for TMR + CABG, and this mortality difference did not remain after adjustment for confounding prognostic factors.28 In addition, in the STS database, about 46% of patients treated with TMR + CABG had unstable angina at baseline, which is in contrast to the randomized, controlled trials wherein patients with unstable angina were generally excluded. In the STS database, patients with unstable angina had higher mortality rates than those without.28 These factors probably explain the heterogeneity in mortality rates observed between randomized and nonrandomized trials.
MACE was significantly reduced at 30 days [OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.99] but not at 1 year [OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.37] or 4 years [OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07 to 1.14]. Other morbidities, including AMI, stroke, cardiac arrest, tamponade, heart failure, and renal failure were not statistically significantly different between groups (Table 7).
Exercise treadmill testing time was reported in only one randomized trial and did not differ significantly between TMR + CABG and CABG at 12 months [WMD, 0.08 minutes; –0.16 to 0.32]. Change in ETT time from baseline to 12 to 18 months was reported in two randomized trials and was significantly improved for TMR + CABG [WMD, 88.05 seconds; 95% CI 52.79 to 123.32 seconds]. Similar improvement in ETT time was shown at 6 months. At 5 years, the change in ETT was not significantly different between TMR + CABG versus CABG alone.
Cardiopulmonary bypass time, ventilation time, and ICU length of stay did not differ between groups. Hospital length of stay was significantly increased with TMR + CABG versus CABG [WMD, 1.55 days; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.13 days]. Need for reintervention, reoperation, excessive bleeding, and readmissions did not significantly differ for TMR + CABG versus CABG (Table 7).
Quality of life was reported in only one nonrandomized trial. Although most scores were improved with TMR + CABG at 1 year, none of the domains reached statistical significance (Table 8).
This systematic review provides a synthesis of the current evidence comparing TMR with conventional management of patients with refractory angina. In summary, this meta-analysis suggests that TMR provides advantages for selected clinical and resource-related outcomes in patients with stable angina caused by coronary morphology that is not amenable to conventional medical or surgical management.
Clinical Outcomes for TMR Versus MMT
Transmyocardial laser revascularization significantly improves angina score (from baseline NYHA/CCS class of 3 to 4, down to NYHA/CCS class of 1 to 2 at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months) and significantly increases the proportion of patients achieving at least 2 angina class improvement as early as 30 days and up to 3 to 5 years. The number of patients with continued severe angina (class III or IV) was significantly decreased. For each of these end points, the reduction in risk was statistically significant and clinically relevant.
Assuming that these results are applicable to patients of similar characteristics outside of the clinical trial setting, this meta-analysis predicts that for every 1000 patients who undergo TMR instead of receiving only MMT, there would be on average 345 more patients with ≥2 class improvement in angina scores at 1 year, 476 fewer patients with severe angina at 1 year, 357 fewer with MACE at 1 year, and 178 fewer patients requiring reintervention at 5 years. In addition, exercise functionality and selected domains of quality of life may be improved for patients receiving TMR instead of MMT. The outcomes did not appear to be related to type of laser modality and severity of angina at entry, although the small number of trials available precluded adequate power to rule out important differences in the subgroup analyses.
Clinical Outcomes for TMR + CABG Versus CABG Alone
Compared with CABG alone, adjunctive TMR reduced MACE at 30 days, improved survival at 30 days, and improved exercise tolerance at 6 months and 12 to 18 months. However, hospital length of stay was significantly increased with TMR + CABG (1.6 days). Extrapolating these results to a population of patients with baseline characteristics similar to the randomized trials in this meta-analysis suggests that for every 1000 patients treated with adjunctive TMR instead of CABG alone, there would be approximately 60 fewer MACE and 74 fewer deaths at 30 days, but at a cost of increased hospital length of stay.
Strengths and Limitations
Although this meta-analysis represents a comprehensive analysis of currently available randomized and nonrandomized evidence, it is likely that new evidence will emerge to better inform the longer-term outcomes, and this newer evidence will need to be incorporated over time. This is particularly important to note, since there exist few trials of TMR to date and additional trials (particularly of TMR + CABG versus CABG) may eventually change the results of this meta-analysis. Since there was consistency among trials of TMR versus MMT for symptom reduction, it is less likely that conclusions regarding symptom reduction will change as more trials become available. On the other hand, given the very few trials of TMR + CABG available to date, additional trials of adjunctive TMR could change the conclusions for its impact on clinical outcomes.
In addition, it is also important to note that the results of this analysis are based on the techniques and skills of the surgeons who administered TMR within the randomized trials, and the results described herein are no guarantee for outcomes produced by individual surgeons or assistants who may have less technical competence or experience than those represented within the trials. It was not clear in the included trials whether surgeons and technicians applying laser therapy were early in their experience or whether they had significant experience before conducting the trial. Since TMR is a relatively new technology, it probably is safe to suggest that the results of this meta-analysis provide a more conservative estimate of the potential benefit than might be possible once significant time has passed to allow operators to gain further experience with the differing laser technologies and techniques.
Another significant limitation of the results of this meta-analysis is that some of the prognostically significant characteristics of the patients differed at baseline in the TMR + CABG versus CABG analysis. Even when the studies were limited to randomized trials, the imbalance was noticeable and tended to have fewer sick patients in the CABG alone group at baseline. Therefore, the results of this analysis probably represent a conservative estimate of the potential efficacy of TMR + CABG, given that patients with worse prognostic factors at baseline weighed more heavily on the TMR + CABG side. Given this baseline imbalance, any benefits that were found for TMR + CABG may be considered a likely underestimate. Further balanced, randomized trials should be conducted to better define the efficacy of TMR + CABG. For TMR versus MMT, there were more patients with hyperlipidemia in the MMT group at baseline. Whether this imbalance confounded outcomes measurement remains unclear, and the results should be interpreted accordingly. In particular, the additional 7% of patients who had hyperlipidemia in the MMT group may have been more likely to develop angina, reinterventions, MACE, and readmissions. Nonetheless, the absolute difference between TMR and MMT groups for these outcomes generally exceeded 7% by severalfold, and correction for this baseline imbalance would not change the conclusions.
Randomized trials generally excluded patients with low ejection fraction, advanced age (>75 years), and recent myocardial infarction. All randomized trials, except for Frazier et al,11 excluded patients with unstable angina. Whether these results are generalizable to these excluded populations remains speculative.
Perioperative mortality rates observed within the randomized trials were generally low and comparable across studies. The low mortality rates probably were due to the strict selection criteria, especially the exclusion of patients with low ejection fraction, unstable angina, and advanced age. Although survival differences did not reach significance, the direction of effect for TMR versus MMT changed over the course of time. Mortality rate at 30 days showed a trend toward increase with TMR [OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.85 to 5.09, P = 0.11], whereas mortality rate at 3 to 5 years showed a trend toward reduction [OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.05]. Given these data, the possibility that there may exist a true increase in early mortality rate cannot be ruled out at this time. However, if the difference does exist, it is not large (3.8% mortality rate for TMR versus 1.8% mortality rate for MMT, for an overall absolute difference of 2.0%), and the overall benefit is in favor of TMR rather than MMT over the longer term. Therefore, if there is an early perioperative excess risk of mortality, the 3- to 5-year data suggest that this risk is outweighed by improved overall survival over the longer term. On the other hand, for TMR + CABG, there appeared to be an early survival benefit by adding TMR to CABG; however, this result should be interpreted with caution, as it is due primarily to an increase in mortality rate observed in the CABG-alone arm from one study23 and could be the play of chance alone. Further randomized trials are needed to better define the time course of survival for TMR versus conventional management.
Exercise tolerance was reported in most randomized trials up to 12 months; however, some trials reported the total time on ETT, whereas others reported the change from baseline in time on ETT. Change in ETT time was significantly improved by 69 seconds at 12 months for TMR versus MMT, whereas the mean time on ETT did not differ at any time point. For TMR + CABG versus CABG alone, ETT was improved 80 to 150 seconds at 6 months to 18 months. The clinical relevance of a 69- to 150-second improvement on ETT might be questioned. Nevertheless, the fact that there was a 50% to 65% reduced risk of experiencing angina that limited time on ETT at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months suggests that the gains in exercise tolerance might be clinically relevant. An important caveat in interpreting the results of exercise tolerance over the longer term is that there was increasing and unbalanced loss to follow-up of patients over time that may affect the validity of the estimates. Furthermore, these trials did not generally involve blinded assessment of exercise tolerance. In addition, in two of the trials, patients were allowed to cross over from MMT to TMR.
Heart failure was measured in only two trials of TMR versus MMT and was variously defined. Combined analysis of these trials suggested that heart failure was significantly increased at 1 to 5 years [number needed to harm = 6]. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly reduced at 3 months and not at 12 months. Interpretation of these results is difficult because heart failure and ventricular function were reported in few trials, and the trials were confounded by large loss to follow-up. It has been previously demonstrated that TMR may increase the risk of postoperative heart failure, and the purported mechanism includes inflammatory reaction, edema, or reversible myocardial injury.29,32 Regardless of the mechanism, the potential for TMR-induced heart failure remains a concern that should be studied further so that the risk-benefit ratio of TMR can be better delineated. Overall, the results at this time suggest that there may be a small increase in risk of decreased left ventricular function within the first year. Whether this risk attenuates over time or whether the results have been confounded by incomplete follow-up remains to be addressed. Measures of heart failure were not assessed in trials of adjunctive TMR versus CABG.
Laser Technique and Subgroup Analyses
The paucity of available comparative trials did not allow for adequate subanalyses by laser type. Although there are purported benefits for each modality, the clinical relevance of these remains unknown. For example, the CO2 and Ho:YAG lasers deliver thermal energy to create channels in the myocardium, whereas the XeCl laser ablates tissue by dissociating molecular bonds. Each type of laser resulted in reduced angina symptoms in the included randomized trials of TMR versus MMT. However, direct comparisons between lasers have not yet been undertaken in clinical trials. Therefore, conclusions about which type of laser provides superior outcomes remain unestablished at this time.
Laser revascularization can be performed through open heart surgery or percutaneously by a catheter-based technique. This analysis focused only on surgical TMR and excluded percutaneous transmyocardial laser revascularizations. Therefore, conclusions regarding the relative efficacy of differing routes of applying laser revascularization cannot be drawn from this analysis. At least four randomized trials of PMR have been published, and the impact on outcomes has been inconsistent.33–36
Number of Channels
The optimal number and spacing of channels has yet to be determined. In the trials included in this meta-analysis, the mean number of channels varied from 18 to 47, and the intended concentration of channels throughout the target myocardium was not always reported. Further research will be required to delineate the relation between clinical outcomes and concentration of laser channels.
Perfusion was typically assessed with the use of 201SPECT or 99SPECT imaging. Of the six included randomized trials evaluating TMR versus MMT, only one showed a significant improvement in myocardial perfusion,11 and all of the trials were confounded by loss to follow-up before patients underwent imaging studies. The reasons for the observed heterogeneity in perfusion remains unknown and is consistent with the variation in observations in previous nonrandomized clinical investigations, some of which report demonstrable increased perfusion in ischemic myocardium after TMR and others of which report no change.29 One randomized trial and one nonrandomized trial of adjunctive TMR evaluated perfusion, and both found no difference.26,29
Considered in aggregate, the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis contribute little to our understanding of the mechanism of action for TMR and its impact on perfusion. The increased exercise tolerance that was found in this meta-analysis does not prove that the myocardium is better perfused after TMR since increased exercise tolerance can be related to multiple underlying mechanisms along with altered patient perception of angina.
The impact of TMR on resource-related outcomes was difficult to assess in this meta-analysis because of the paucity of trials reporting relevant resource and economic outcomes. The need for readmission was significantly reduced at 1 year, and reintervention for ischemia was significantly reduced at 5 years [OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.72] for TMR versus MMT. For adjunctive TMR, the impact on readmissions and reinterventions was nonsignificant. Hospital and ICU length of stay data was not provided in the randomized trials of TMR versus MMT; however, the total length of stay was increased significantly by over 1.5 days for adjunctive TMR. Nevertheless, this latter result was derived from only two randomized trials, and the generalizability to other institutions with contemporary protocols for early discharge criteria remains unclear. Campbell et al21 completed a formal cost-utility analysis of patients included in the randomized trial of TMR versus MMT by Schofield et al12 The results of the economic analysis estimated that TMR cost an additional £8901 versus MMT at 1 year and resulted in a QALY improvement of +0.039, with an estimated overall incremental £228,000/QALY. As a result, Campbell and colleagues concluded that TMR was an inefficient use of UK resources, and this conclusion was robust across varied assumptions of costs and effects.
A number of important methodologic limitations of the randomized trials included in this meta-analysis need to be highlighted, including cross-overs, loss to follow-up, and lack of blinding. In two trials, patients were allowed to cross over from the MMT group to receive TMR if they failed maximal medical therapy. In most trials, for various reasons, some patients were excluded or lost to follow-up (about 11% at 1-year follow-up for MMT trials). Although the cross-overs may have resulted in more conservative estimates of effect, the overall impact of loss to follow-up and exclusions on outcomes estimates is unknown. Furthermore, although blinded, sham-controlled surgical trials are difficult to perform, the lack of blinding does raise concern regarding a possible placebo effect.37,38
A Consensus Conference and Statement on TMR
A consensus conference was facilitated by the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery (ISMICS) to clarify the role of TMR in patients with angina refractory to conventional medical or surgical management.39 After consideration of this systematic review, the ISMICS Consensus Conference suggested that in stable patients with refractory severe angina not amenable to conventional revascularization, TMR can be recommended instead of MMT to improve sustained angina relief [class I, level A evidence], reduce MACE and improve exercise performance [class I, level A evidence], and reduce readmissions and reinterventions [class IIa, level B evidence]. In patients with diffuse coronary artery disease who cannot be completely revascularized by CABG alone, adjunctive TMR + CABG can be recommended to improve long-term angina relief [class IIa, level A evidence], reduce 30-day mortality rates and MACE [class IIa, level A/B evidence], and to improve 1-year exercise performance [class IIa, level A evidence]. The consensus panel stated that TMR represents a viable alternative to conventional maximal medical treatment for patients with refractory stable angina not amenable to conventional surgical revascularization [class I, level B] and that adjunctive TMR + CABG can be considered a part of the therapeutic armamentarium in chronic stable angina patients with coronary morphology deemed only partially amenable to revascularization by conventional surgical revascularization [class IIa, level B].
An earlier published practice guideline by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons suggested that transmyocardial laser revascularization may be acceptable as sole therapy for a subset of patients with refractory angina and as an adjunct to CABG surgery for a subset of patients with angina who cannot be completely revascularized surgically.40
Despite the proven success of conventional revascularization for patients with coronary artery disease via PCI or CABG, a significant number of patients with diffuse disease cannot be successfully revascularized and many have refractory and debilitating angina symptoms despite maximal conventional management strategies (ie, drug therapies for patients not amenable to surgical revascularization or CABG with incomplete revascularization for patients only partially amenable to surgical bypass).
For patients with stable class III or IV angina who are not candidates for CABG due to diffuse morphology, transmyocardial laser revascularization can significantly reduce angina symptoms, and possibly improve exercise tolerance, compared with maximal medical treatment alone. Reinterventions and readmissions may also be reduced; however, the short-term risk of heart failure may be slightly increased.
For patients who have coronary artery morphology only partially amenable to revascularization through CABG, adjunctive TMR may also reduce MACE and improve exercise tolerance and survival over the short term. The role of adjunctive TMR remains unclear for angina symptom reduction because of the limited number of randomized, controlled trials.
1. Huikeshoven M, Beek JF, van der Sloot JA, et al. Twenty-five years of experimental research in transmyocardial revascularization: what have we learned? Ann Thorac Surg
2. Peterson ED, Kaul P, Kacmarek RG, et al. From controlled trials to clinical practice: monitoring transmyocardial revascularization use and outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol
3. Liao L, Sarria-Santamera A, Matchar DB, et al. Meta-analysis of survival and relief of angina pectoris after transmyocardial revascularization. Am J Cardiol
4. Burns SM, Brown S, White CA, et al. Quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion changes with transmyocardial laser revascularization. Am J Cardiol
5. Cummings JP, Ratko TA, Matuszewski KA. Transmyocardial laser revascularization: a qualitative systematic review. Am J Manag Care
. 1998;4:Spec No:SP152-66.
6. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet
7. Alderson P, Green S, Higgins J. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4. 2.1, [updated December 2003]. Edition. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2004.
8. Aaberge L, Nordstrand K, Dragsund M, et al. Transmyocardial revascularization with CO2 laser in patients with refractory angina pectoris: clinical results from the Norwegian randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol
9. Allen KB, Dowling RD, Fudge TL, et al. Comparison of transmyocardial revascularization with medical therapy in patients with refractory angina. N Engl J Med
10. Burkhoff D, Schmidt S, Schulman SP, et al. Transmyocardial laser revascularisation compared with continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris: a prospective randomised trial. ATLANTIC Investigators: Angina Treatments-Lasers and Normal Therapies in Comparison. Lancet
11. Frazier OH, March RJ, Horvath KA. Transmyocardial revascularization with a carbon dioxide laser in patients with end-stage coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med
12. Schofield PM, Sharples LD, Caine Net al. Transmyocardial laser revascularisation in patients with refractory angina: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet
. 1999;353:519–524. Erratum in: Lancet
13. van der Sloot JA, Huikeshoven M, Tukkie R, et al. Transmyocardial revascularization using an XeCl excimer laser: results of a randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg
14. Aaberge L, Rootwelt K, Smith HJ, et al. Effects of transmyocardial revascularization on myocardial perfusion and systolic function assessed by nuclear and magnetic resonance imaging methods. Scand Cardiovasc J
15. Aaberge L, Aakhus S, Nordstrand K, et al. Myocardial performance after transmyocardial revascularization with CO(2) laser: a dobutamine stress echocardiographic study. Eur J Echocardiogr
16. Aaberge L, Rootwelt K, Blomhoff S, et al. Continued symptomatic improvement three to five years after transmyocardial revascularization with CO(2) laser: a late clinical follow-up of the Norwegian Randomized trial with transmyocardial revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol
17. Allen KB, Dowling RD, Angell WW, et al. Transmyocardial revascularization: 5-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized multicenter trial. Ann Thorac Surg
18. March RJ. Transmyocardial laser revascularization with the CO2 laser: one year results of a randomized, controlled trial. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
19. Myers J, Oesterle SN, Jones J, Burkhoff D. Do transmyocardial and percutaneous laser revascularization induce silent ischemia? An assessment by exercise testing. Am Heart J
20. Spertus JA, Jones PG, Coen M, et al. Transmyocardial CO(2) laser revascularization improves symptoms, function, and quality of life: 12-month results from a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med
21. Campbell HE, Tait S, Buxton MJ, et al. A UK trial-based cost-utility analysis of transmyocardial laser revascularization compared to continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
22. Huikeshoven M, van der Sloot JA, Tukkie R, et al. Improved quality of life after XeCl excimer transmyocardial laser revascularization: results of a randomized trial. Lasers Surg Med
23. Allen KB, Dowling RD, DelRossi AJ, et al. Transmyocardial laser revascularization combined with coronary artery bypass grafting: a multicenter, blinded, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
24. Allen KB, Dowling RD, Schuch DR, et al. Adjunctive transmyocardial revascularization: five-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg
25. Frazier OH, Tuzun E, Eichstadt H, et al. Transmyocardial laser revascularization as an adjunct to coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized, multicenter study with 4-year follow-up. Tex Heart Inst J
26. Loubani M, Chin D, Leverment JN, Galinanes M. Mid-term results of combined transmyocardial laser revascularization and coronary artery bypass. Ann Thorac Surg
27. Guleserian KJ, Maniar HS, Camillo CJ, et al. Quality of life and survival after transmyocardial laser revascularization with the holmium:YAG laser. Ann Thorac Surg
. 2003;75:1842–1847; discussion 1847–1848.
28. Horvath KA, Ferguson TB Jr, Guyton RA, Edwards FH. Impact of unstable angina on outcomes of transmyocardial laser revascularization combined with coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg
29. Lutter G, Sarai K, Nitzsche E, et al. Evaluation of transmyocardial laser revascularization by following objective parameters of perfusion and ventricular function. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
30. Jones JW, Schmidt SE, Richman BW, et al. Holmium: YAG laser transmyocardial revascularization relieves angina and improves functional status. Ann Thorac Surg
31. Galinanes M, Loubani M, Sensky PR, et al. Efficacy of transmyocardial laser revascularization and thoracic sympathectomy for the treatment of refractory angina. Ann Thorac Surg
32. Lutter G, Saurbier B, Nitzsche E, et al. Transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMLR) in patients with unstable angina and low ejection fraction. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
33. Oesterle SN, Sanborn TA, Ali N, et al. Percutaneous transmyocardial laser revascularisation for severe angina: the PACIFIC randomised trial: potential class improvement from intramyocardial channels. Lancet
34. Leon MB, Kornowski R, Downey WE, et al. A blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous laser myocardial revascularization to improve angina symptoms in patients with severe coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol
35. Salem M, Rotevatn S, Stavnes S, et al. Usefulness and safety of percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization for refractory angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol
36. Stone GW, Teirstein PS, Rubenstein R, et al. A prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of percutaneous transmyocardial laser revascularization in patients with nonrecanalizable chronic total occlusions. Am Coll Cardiol
37. Bienenfeld L, Frishman W, Glasser SP. The placebo effect in cardiovascular disease. Am Heart J
38. Saririan M, Eisenberg MJ. Myocardial laser revascularization for the treatment of end-stage coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol
39. Diegeler A, Cheng D, et al. Transmyocardial laser revascularization: a consensus statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Coronary Surgery (ISMICS) 2006. Innovations
© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
40. Bridges CR, Horvath KA, Nugent WC, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons practice guideline series: transmyocardial laser revascularization. Ann Thorac Surg