Multislice CT for assessing in-stent dimensions after left main coronary artery stenting: a comparison with three dimensional intravascular ultrasound

Objective: To evaluate the agreement between multislice CT (MSCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to assess the in-stent lumen diameters and lumen areas of left main coronary artery (LMCA) stents. Design: Prospective, observational single centre study. Setting: A single tertiary referral centre. Patients: Consecutive patients with LMCA stenting excluding patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic renal failure. Interventions: MSCT and IVUS imaging at 912 months follow-up were performed for all patients. Main outcome measures: Agreement between MSCT and IVUS minimum luminal area (MLA) and minimum luminal diameter (MLD). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to find the MSCT cut-off point to diagnose binary restenosis equivalent to 6 mm2 by IVUS. Results: 52 patients were analysed. PassingBablok regression analysis obtained a β coefficient of 0.786 (0.586 to 1.071) for MLA and 1.250 (0.936 to 1.667) for MLD, ruling out proportional bias. The α coefficient was −3.588 (−8.686 to −0.178) for MLA and −1.713 (−3.583 to −0.257) for MLD, indicating an underestimation trend of MSCT. The ROC curve identified an MLA ≤4.7 mm2 as the best threshold to assess in-stent restenosis by MSCT. Conclusions: Agreement between MSCT and IVUS to assess in-stent MLA and MLD for LMCA stenting is good. An MLA of 4.7 mm2 by MSCT is the best threshold to assess binary restenosis. MSCT imaging can be considered in selected patients to assess LMCA in-stent restenosis

Multislice CT for assessing in-stent dimensions after left main coronary artery stenting: a comparison with three dimensional intravascular ultrasound

Objective: To evaluate the agreement between multislice CT (MSCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to assess the in-stent lumen diameters and lumen areas of left main coronary artery (LMCA) stents. Design: Prospective, observational single centre study. Setting: A single tertiary referral centre. Patients: Consecutive patients with LMCA stenting excluding patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic renal failure. Interventions: MSCT and IVUS imaging at 9-12 months follow-up were performed for all patients. Main outcome measures: Agreement between MSCT and IVUS minimum luminal area (MLA) and minimum luminal diameter (MLD). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to find the MSCT cut-off point to diagnose binary restenosis equivalent to 6 mm2 by IVUS. Results: 52 patients were analysed. Passing-Bablok regression analysis obtained a β coefficient of 0.786 (0.586 to 1.071) for MLA and 1.250 (0.936 to 1.667) for MLD, ruling out proportional bias. The α coefficient was −3.588 (−8.686 to −0.178) for MLA and −1.713 (−3.583 to −0.257) for MLD, indicating an underestimation trend of MSCT. The ROC curve identified an MLA ≤4.7 mm2 as the best threshold to assess in-stent restenosis by MSCT. Conclusions: Agreement between MSCT and IVUS to assess in-stent MLA and MLD for LMCA stenting is good. An MLA of 4.7 mm2 by MSCT is the best threshold to assess binary restenosis. MSCT imaging can be considered in selected patients to assess LMCA in-stent restenosis

Supremacía del derecho federal sobre el Common Law en materia de requisitos de seguridad y eficacia terapéutica de productos sanitarios. Comentario a Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. [552 U.S.__ (2008); February 20, 2008]

En Riegel v. Medtronic Inc. (552 U.S.__2008; February 20, 2008), el Sr. Riegel tuvo que ser sometido a un by-pass como consecuencia de la rotura del catéter, fabricado por Medtronic, con el que su médico le practicaba una angioplastia. A pesar de que el catéter había obtenido la autorización de comercialización de la FDA y cumplía los requisitos de seguridad previstos por el sistema regulatorio federal, el Sr. Riegel y su mujer interpusieron una acción de daños contra Medtronic –y no contra el médico- conforme a las reglas de responsabilidad civil objetiva y por negligencia del Common Law neoyorquino. Sin embargo, el Tribunal Supremo federal de los EE.UU., en ponencia del Magistrado Antonin Gregory Scalia, votó, por mayoría de ocho magistrados, rechazar el recurso de la Sra. Riegel y confirmar la sentencia de segunda instancia, desestimatoria de la demanda, porque consideró que la regla de primacía del derecho regulatorio federal sobre seguridad de productos sanitarios [Medical Device Amendments de 1976, 21 U.S.C. Artículo 360k(a)] excluye la aplicabilidad no sólo del derecho regulatorio estatal sobre seguridad de productos sanitarios, sino también del Common Law sobre responsabilidad civil del fabricante.

Effects of cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents or bare metal stent on fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events: patient level meta-analysis

Objectives: To examine the safety and effectiveness of cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents. Design: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Cox proportional regression models stratified by trial, containing random effects, were used to assess the impact of stent type on outcomes. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence interval for outcomes were reported. Data sources and study selection: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomised controlled trials that compared cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents with bare metal stents were selected. The principal investigators whose trials met the inclusion criteria provided data for individual patients. Primary outcomes: The primary outcome was cardiac mortality. Secondary endpoints were myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, definite or probable stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularisation, and all cause death. Results: The search yielded five randomised controlled trials, comprising 4896 participants. Compared with patients receiving bare metal stents, participants receiving cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents had a significant reduction of cardiac mortality (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.91; P=0.01), myocardial infarction (0.71, 0.55 to 0.92; P=0.01), definite stent thrombosis (0.41, 0.22 to 0.76; P=0.005), definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.48, 0.31 to 0.73; P<0.001), and target vessel revascularisation (0.29, 0.20 to 0.41; P<0.001) at a median follow-up of 720 days. There was no significant difference in all cause death between groups (0.83, 0.65 to 1.06; P=0.14). Findings remained unchanged at multivariable regression after adjustment for the acuity of clinical syndrome (for instance, acute coronary syndrome v stable coronary artery disease), diabetes mellitus, female sex, use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and up to one year v longer duration treatment with dual antiplatelets. Conclusions: This meta-analysis offers evidence that compared with bare metal stents the use of cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents improves global cardiovascular outcomes including cardiac survival, myocardial infarction, and overall stent thrombosis.

Effects of cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents or bare metal stent on fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events: patient level meta-analysis

Objectives: To examine the safety and effectiveness of cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents. Design: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Cox proportional regression models stratified by trial, containing random effects, were used to assess the impact of stent type on outcomes. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence interval for outcomes were reported. Data sources and study selection: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomised controlled trials that compared cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents with bare metal stents were selected. The principal investigators whose trials met the inclusion criteria provided data for individual patients. Primary outcomes: The primary outcome was cardiac mortality. Secondary endpoints were myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, definite or probable stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularisation, and all cause death. Results: The search yielded five randomised controlled trials, comprising 4896 participants. Compared with patients receiving bare metal stents, participants receiving cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents had a significant reduction of cardiac mortality (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.91; P=0.01), myocardial infarction (0.71, 0.55 to 0.92; P=0.01), definite stent thrombosis (0.41, 0.22 to 0.76; P=0.005), definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.48, 0.31 to 0.73; P<0.001), and target vessel revascularisation (0.29, 0.20 to 0.41; P<0.001) at a median follow-up of 720 days. There was no significant difference in all cause death between groups (0.83, 0.65 to 1.06; P=0.14). Findings remained unchanged at multivariable regression after adjustment for the acuity of clinical syndrome (for instance, acute coronary syndrome v stable coronary artery disease), diabetes mellitus, female sex, use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and up to one year v longer duration treatment with dual antiplatelets. Conclusions: This meta-analysis offers evidence that compared with bare metal stents the use of cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents improves global cardiovascular outcomes including cardiac survival, myocardial infarction, and overall stent thrombosis.