Randomized study to assess the effectiveness of slow- and moderate-release polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary artery lesions. Colonic stenting versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicentre randomised trial. A prospective randomized trial comparing stenting to internal mammary artery grafting for proximal, isolated de novo left anterior coronary artery stenosis: the SIMA trial. Stenting vs Internal Mammary Artery. The efficacy of pneumatic compression stockings in the prevention of pulmonary embolism after cardiac surgery. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stenting for proximal stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Randomised trial of endoscopic stenting versus surgical bypass in malignant low bileduct obstruction.
Early clinical studies demonstrated the feasibility of local paclitaxel delivery in reducing restenosis after treatment of de novo coronary lesions in small patient populations.
                We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of 536 patients at 38 medical centers evaluating slow-release (SR) and moderate-release (MR) formulations of a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent (TAXUS) for revascularization of single, primary lesions in native coronary arteries. Cohort I compared TAXUS-SR with control stents, and Cohort II compared TAXUS-MR with a second control group. The primary end point was 6-month percent in-stent net volume obstruction measured by intravascular ultrasound. Secondary end points were 6-month angiographic restenosis and 6- and 12-month incidence of major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. At 6 months, percent net volume obstruction within the stent was significantly lower for TAXUS stents (7.9% SR and 7.8% MR) than for respective controls (23.2% and 20.5%; P<0.0001 for both). This corresponded with a reduction in angiographic restenosis from 17.9% to 2.3% in the SR cohort (P<0.0001) and from 20.2% to 4.7% in the MR cohort (P=0.0002). The incidence of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months was significantly lower (P=0.0192) in the TAXUS-SR (10.9%) and TAXUS-MR (9.9%) groups than in controls (22.0% and 21.4%, respectively), predominantly because of a significant reduction in repeat revascularization of the target lesion in TAXUS-treated patients.
                Compared with a bare metal stent, paclitaxel-eluting stents reduced in-stent neointimal formation and restenosis and improved 12-month clinical outcome of patients with single de novo coronary lesions. Colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery is an alternative for emergency surgery in patients with acute malignant colonic obstruction, but its benefits are uncertain. We aimed to establish whether colonic stenting has better health outcomes than does emergency surgery.
                Patients with acute obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer were enrolled from 25 hospitals in the Netherlands and randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery or emergency surgery. The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permuted blocks and was stratified by centre; treatment allocation was concealed by use of a web-based application. Investigators and patients were unmasked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was mean global health status during a 6-month follow-up, which was assessed with the QL2 subscale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN46462267.
                Between March 9, 2007, and Aug 27, 2009, 98 patients were assigned to receive colonic stenting (n=47 patients) or emergency surgery (n=51). Two successive interim analyses showed increased 30-day morbidity in the colonic stenting group, with an absolute risk increase of 0.19 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.41) in analysis of the first 60 patients (14 of 28 patients receiving colonic stenting vs 10 of 32 receiving emergency surgery), and an absolute risk increase of 0.19 (-0.01 to 0.37) in analysis of the first 90 patients (23 of 47 patients vs 13 of 43). In accordance with the advice of the data safety monitoring committee, the study was suspended on Sept 18, 2009, and ended on March 12, 2010. At the final analysis of 98 patients, mean global health status during follow-up was 63.0 (SD 23.8) in the colonic stenting group and 61.4 (SD 21.9) in the emergency surgery group; after adjustment for baseline values, mean global health status did not differ between treatment groups (-4.7, 95% CI -14.8 to 5.5, p=0.36). No difference was recorded between treatment groups in 30-day mortality (absolute risk difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, p=0.89), overall mortality (-0.02, -0.17 to 0.14, p=0.84), morbidity (-0.08, -0.27 to 0.11, p=0.43), and stoma rates at latest follow-up (0.09, -0.10 to 0.27, p=0.35). However, the emergency surgery group had an increased stoma rate directly after initial intervention (0.23, 0.04 to 0.40, p=0.016) and a reduced frequency of stoma-related problems (between-group difference -12.0, -23.7 to -0.2, p=0.046). The most common serious adverse events were abscess (three in the colonic stenting group vs four in the emergency surgery group), perforations (six vs none), and anastomotic leakage (five vs one), and the most common adverse events were pneumonia (three vs one) and wound infection (one vs three).
                Colonic stenting has no decisive clinical advantages to emergency surgery. It could be used as an alternative treatment in as yet undefined subsets of patients, although with caution because of concerns about tumour spread caused by perforations.
                None.
                Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. To compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in patients with proximal, isolated de novo left anterior descending coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%.
                In the multicenter Stenting vs Internal Mammary Artery (SIMA) study, patients were randomly assigned to PTCA and stent implantation or to CABG (using the internal mammary artery). The primary clinical composite end point was event-free survival, including death, myocardial infarction, and the need for additional revascularization. Secondary end points were functional class, antianginal treatment, and quality of life. Analyses were by intention to treat.
                Of 123 patients who accepted randomization, 59 underwent CABG, and 62 were treated with stent implantation (2 patients were excluded because of protocol violation). At a mean +/- SD follow-up of 2.4+/-0.9 years, a primary end point had occurred in 19 patients (31%) in the stent group and in 4 (7%) in the CABG group (P<.001). This significant difference in clinical outcome is due to a higher incidence of additional revascularization in the stent group, the incidence of death and myocardial infarction being similar (7% vs 7%, respectively; P=.90). The functional class, need for antianginal drug, and quality-of-life assessment showed no significant differences.
                Both stent implantation and CABG are safe and highly effective treatments to relieve symptoms in patients with isolated, proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. Both are associated with a low and comparable incidence of death and myocardial infarction. However, similar to PTCA alone, a percutaneous approach using elective stent placement remains hampered by a higher need for repeated intervention because of restenosis. Pneumatic compression stocking (PCS) devices have been introduced to decrease the incidence of postoperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT). However, their role in the prophylaxis against pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unclear. This study was undertaken to compare the prophylactic effectiveness of subcutaneous heparin (SCH) alone vs the combined use of PCS and SCH in the prevention of PE following cardiac surgery.
                We studied 2,551 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac surgery over a 10-year period. They were randomly allocated to two groups. Group A included 1,196 patients who were treated with 5,000 U of SCH every 12 h and group B included 1,355 patients treated with a combined prophylactic regimen of PCS and SCH.
                The diagnosis of PE was established in 69 patients by either high-probability ventilation perfusion scan, pulmonary angiogram, or autopsy. The incidence of PE in group A patients was 4% (48/1,196) and in group B was 1.5% (21/1,355). The concomitant use of bilateral PCS and SCH reduced the frequency of postoperative PE in 62% in comparison to the prophylaxis with SCH alone (p < 0.001).
                These data suggest that the combined prophylactic method of bilateral PCS and SCH is superior to SCH alone in the prevention of PE after cardiac surgery. To compare the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with or without stenting in patients with single-vessel disease of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD).
                Multi-centre randomised trial without blinding. The computer-generated sequence of randomised assignments was stratified by centre, allocated participants in blocks and was concealed using a centralised telephone facility.
                Four tertiary cardiothoracic surgery centres in England.
                Patients with ischaemic heart disease with at least 50% proximal stenosis of the LAD, suitable for either PTCA or MIDCAB, and with no significant disease in another vessel.
                Patients randomised to PTCA had local anaesthetic and underwent PTCA according to the method preferred by the operator carrying out the procedure. Patients randomised to MIDCAB had general anaesthetic. The chest was opened through an 8-10-cm left anterior thoracotomy. The ribs were retracted and the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) harvested. The pericardium was opened in the line of the LAD to confirm the feasibility of operation. The distal LITA was anastomosed end-to-side to an arteriotomy in the LAD. All operators were experienced in carrying out MIDCAB.
                The primary outcome measure was survival free from cardiac-related events. Relevant events were death, myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularisation and recurrence of symptomatic angina or clinical signs of ischaemia during an exercise tolerance test at annual follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were complications, functional outcome, disease-specific and generic quality of life, health and social services resource use and their costs.
                A total of 12,828 consecutive patients undergoing an angiogram were logged at participating centres from November 1999 to December 2001. Of the 1091 patients with proximal stenosis of the LAD, 127 were eligible and consented to take part; 100 were randomised and the remaining 27 consented to follow-up. All randomised participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis of survival free from cardiac-related events, which found a non-significant benefit from MIDCAB. Cumulative hazard rates at 12 months were estimated to be 7.1 and 9.2% for MIDCAB and PTCA, respectively. There were no important differences between MIDCAB and PTCA with respect to angina symptoms or disease-specific or generic quality of life. The total NHS procedure costs were 1648 British pounds and 946 British pounds for MIDCAB and PTCA, respectively. The costs of resources used during 1 year of follow-up were 1033 British pounds and 843 British pounds, respectively.
                The study found no evidence that MIDCAB was more effective than PTCA. The procedure costs of MIDCAB were observed to be considerably higher than those of PTCA. Given these findings, it is unlikely that MIDCAB represents a cost-effective use of resources in the reference population. Recent advances in cardiac surgery mean that surgeons now tend to carry out off-pump bypass grafting via a sternotomy instead of MIDCAB. At the same time, cardiologists are treating more patients with multi-vessel disease by PTCA. Future primary research should focus on this comparison. Other small trials of PTCA versus MIDCAB have now finished and a more conclusive answer to the original objective could be provided by a systematic review. The development of non-surgical techniques for the relief of malignant low bileduct obstruction has cast doubt on the best way of relieving jaundice, particularly in patients fit for surgery whose life expectancy is more than a few weeks. We did a randomised prospective controlled trial comparing endoscopic stent insertion and surgical biliary bypass in patients with malignant low bileduct obstruction. 204 patients were randomised (surgery 103, stent 101); 3 subsequently proved to have benign disease and were excluded, leaving 101 surgical and 100 stented patients for assessment. Technical success was achieved in 94 surgical and 95 stented patients, with functional biliary decompression obtained in 92 patients in both groups. In stented patients, there was a lower procedure-related mortality (3% vs 14%, p = 0.01), major complication rate (11% vs 29%, p = 0.02), and median total hospital stay (20 vs 26 days, p = 0.001). Recurrent jaundice occurred in 36 stented patients and 2 surgical patients. Late gastric outlet obstruction occurred in 17% of stented patients and 7% of the surgical group. Despite the early benefits of stenting there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (median survival: surgical 26 weeks; stented 21 weeks; p = 0.065). Endoscopic stenting and surgery are effective palliative treatments with the former having fewer early treatment-related complications and the latter fewer late complications.
Routine prophylactic stenting reduces the incidence of MUCs. Studies comparing selective stenting and universal prophylactic stenting, whilst difficult to design and analyse, would address the unresolved quality of life and economic issues.