"Because of the current public interest in this topic, the following articles and commentary were published on February 12, 2007, at www.nejm.org. They will appear in the March 8 issue of the Journal."
Original Article
A Pooled Analysis of Data Comparing Sirolimus-Eluting Stents with Bare-Metal Stents
C. Spaulding and Others
Original Article
Safety and Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stents
G.W. Stone and Others
Original Article
Long-Term Outcomes with Drug-Eluting Stents versus Bare-Metal Stents in Sweden
B. Lagerqvist and Others
Original Article
Stent Thrombosis in Randomized Clinical Trials of Drug-Eluting Stents
L. Mauri and Others
Original Article
Analysis of 14 Trials Comparing Sirolimus-Eluting Stents with Bare-Metal Stents
A. Kastrati and Others
Editorial
Drug-Eluting Coronary Stents — Promise and Uncertainty (with animated figure)
G.D. Curfman and Others
Perspective
Unanswered Questions — Drug-Eluting Stents and the Risk of Late Thrombosis
W.H. Maisel
Perspective
Stent Thrombosis Redux — The FDA Perspective
A. Farb and A.B. Boam An audio interview with Donald Baim and Steven Nissen |
1 comment:
I find the flurry of information released AFTER THE WHITE PAPER to be highly ironic.
There are addtional publications (Stahli, Circ Res 2006), (Muldowney et. al ATVB 2007) suggesting that in addition to mechanical reasons for acute stent thrombosis, there are prothrombotic aspects to the agents utiilized in drug eluting stents.
I think physicians need to think carefully about the whole patient prior to each of the following steps: 1) Stress Testing, 2) Cath and 3) Coronary Hardware delivery.
Things such as potential surgery in the next 1 to 2 years, bleeding risk etc. need to be considered. In addition, more rarely, plavix/ticlid allergies have been known to occur necessitating desensitization protcols.
Post a Comment