Search

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "A Randomized Trial of Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Artery Disease" in the June 11, 2009 issue of the "New England Journal of Medicine."

A response by C. Kaiser and colleagues to a letter to the editor about their article "Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Large Coronary Arteries," in the December 9, 2010 issue is presented.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy study discussed in a previous issue of the "New England Journal of Medicine," particularly, about an observation of an increase in the risk of myocardial infarction after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy.

Background: Recent data have suggested that patients with coronary disease in large arteries are at increased risk for late cardiac events after percutaneous intervention with first-generation drug-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents. We sought to confirm this observation and to assess whether this increase in risk was also seen with second-generation drug-eluting stents. Methods: We randomly assigned 2314 patients needing stents that were 3.0 mm or more in diameter to receive sirolimus-eluting, everolimus-eluting, or bare-metal stents. The primary end point was the composite of death from cardiac causes or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 2 years. Late events (occurring during months 7 to 24) and target-vessel revascularization were the main secondary end points. Results: The rates of the primary end point were 2.6% among patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents, 3.2% among those receiving everolimus-eluting stents, and 4.8% among those receiving bare-metal stents, with no significant differences between patients receiving either drug-eluting stent and those receiving bare-metal stents. There were also no significant between-group differences in the rate of late events or in the rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. Rates of target-vessel revascularization for reasons unrelated to myocardial infarction were 3.7% among patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents, 3.1% among those receiving everolimus-eluting stents, and 8.9% among those receiving bare-metal stents. The rate of target-vessel revascularization was significantly reduced among patients receiving either drug-eluting stent, as compared with a bare-metal stent, with no significant difference between the two types of drug-eluting stents. Conclusions: In patients requiring stenting of large coronary arteries, no significant differences were found among sirolimus-eluting, everolimus-eluting, and bare-metal stents with respect to the rate of death or myocardial infarction. With the two drug-eluting stents, similar reductions in rates of target-vessel revascularization were seen. (Funded by the Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation and the Swiss National Foundation for Research; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN72444640.) N Engl J Med 2010;363:2310-9. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The long-term effects of treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, have not been established. Methods We performed an analysis of individual data on 4958 patients enrolled in 14 randomized trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents (mean follow-up interval, 12.1 to 58.9 months). The primary end point was death from any cause. Other outcomes were stent thrombosis, the composite end point of death or myocardial infarction, and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or reintervention. Results The overall risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.30) and the combined risk of death or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.16) were not significantly different for patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents. There was a significant reduction in the combined risk of death, myocardial infarction, or reintervention (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.54) associated with the use of sirolimus-eluting stents. There was no significant difference in the overall risk of stent thrombosis with sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.86). However, there was evidence of a slight increase in the risk of stent thrombosis associated with sirolimus-eluting stents after the first year. Conclusions The use of sirolimus-eluting stents does not have a significant effect on overall long-term survival and survival free of myocardial infarction, as compared with bare-metal stents. There is a sustained reduction in the need for reintervention after the use of sirolimus-eluting stents. The risk of stent thrombosis is at least as great as that seen with bare-metal stents [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is unclear whether stable, high-risk patients with persistent total occlusion of the infarct-related coronary artery identified after the currently accepted period for myocardial salvage has passed should undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in addition to receiving optimal medical therapy to reduce the risk of subsequent events. Methods: We conducted a randomized study involving 2166 stable patients who had total occlusion of the infarct-related artery 3 to 28 days after myocardial infarction and who met a high-risk criterion (an ejection fraction of <50% or proximal occlusion). Of these patients, 1082 were assigned to routine PCI and stenting with optimal medical therapy, and 1084 were assigned to optimal medical therapy alone. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial reinfarction, or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure. Results: The 4-year cumulative primary event rate was 17.2% in the PCI group and 15.6% in the medical therapy group (hazard ratio for death, reinfarction, or heart failure in the PCI group as compared with the medical therapy group, 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.45; P=0.20). Rates of myocardial reinfarction (fatal and nonfatal) were 7.0% and 5.3% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.00; P=0.13). Rates of nonfatal reinfarction were 6.9% and 5.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.16; P=0.08); only six reinfarctions (0.6%) were related to assigned PCI procedures. Rates of NYHA class IV heart failure (4.4% vs. 4.5%) and death (9.1% vs. 9.4%) were similar. There was no interaction between treatment effect and any subgroup variable (age, sex, race or ethnic group, infarct-related artery, ejection fraction, diabetes, Killip class, and the time from myocardial infarction to randomization). Conclusions: PCI did not reduce the occurrence of death, reinfarction, or heart failure, and there was a trend toward excess reinfarction during 4 years of follow-up in stable patients with occlusion of the infarct-related artery 3 to 28 days after myocardial infarction. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004562.) N Engl J Med 2006;355:2395-407. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: B-type natriuretic peptide levels are higher in patients with congestive heart failure than in patients with dyspnea from other causes. Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled study of 452 patients who presented to the emergency department with acute dyspnea: 225 patients were randomly assigned to a diagnostic strategy involving the measurement of B-type natriuretic peptide levels with the use of a rapid bedside assay, and 227 were assessed in a standard manner. The time to discharge and the total cost of treatment were the primary end points. Results: Base-line demographic and clinical characteristics were well matched between the two groups. The use of B-type natriuretic peptide levels reduced the need for hospitalization and intensive care; 75 percent of patients in the B-type natriuretic peptide group were hospitalized, as compared with 85 percent of patients in the control group (P=0.008), and 15 percent of those in the B-type natriuretic peptide group required intensive care, as compared with 24 percent of those in the control group (P=0.01). The median time to discharge was 8.0 days in the B-type natriuretic peptide group and 11.0 days in the control group (P=0.001). The mean total cost of treatment was $5,410 (95 percent confidence interval, $4,516 to $6,304) in the B-type natriuretic peptide group, as compared with $7,264 (95 percent confidence interval, $6,301 to $8,227) in the control group (P=0.006). The respective 30-day mortality rates were 10 percent and 12 percent (P=0.45). Conclusions: Used in conjunction with other clinical information, rapid measurement of B-type natriuretic peptide in the emergency department improved the evaluation and treatment of patients with acute dyspnea and thereby reduced the time to discharge and the total cost of treatment. N Engl J Med 2004;350:647-54. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]