You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 294 No. 13, October 5, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Revascularization
 •Surgical Interventions
 •Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery
 •Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction
 •Cardiovascular Intervention
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Tirofiban Plus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs Abciximab Plus Bare-Metal Stent

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: We would like to raise some points regarding the report of the STRATEGY trial by Dr Valgimigli and colleagues.1 The study compared adjuvant tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stenting vs abciximab plus bare-metal stenting in the context of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and found no significant differences in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days. However, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and target lesion revascularization were significantly less frequent in the tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stent group at 8 months, a finding that also drove the reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events for that group. The strategy of using different glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists in the 2 groups was based on the higher cost implications of abciximab (compared with tirofiban) and drug-eluting stents.

A high-dose bolus of tirofiban was used in the hope of reducing periprocedural risk of myocardial infarction while lowering overall procedural costs. However, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Faizel Osman, MB, BCh, MRCP
f.osman@bham.ac.uk

Sohail Qaisar, MB, BS, MRCP; Nadia El Gaylani, MB, ChB, MRCP; Michael Pitt, MB, ChB, FRCP
Department of Cardiology
Birmingham Heartlands
Birmingham, United Kingdom


RELATED ARTICLES

Tirofiban Plus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs Abciximab Plus Bare-Metal Stent
Leonardo De Luca and Gennaro Sardella
JAMA. 2005;294(13):1617.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tirofiban Plus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs Abciximab Plus Bare-Metal Stent—Reply
Marco Valgimigli
JAMA. 2005;294(13):1617-1618.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Trial
Marco Valgimigli, Gianfranco Percoco, Patrizia Malagutti, Gianluca Campo, Fabrizio Ferrari, Dario Barbieri, Giordano Cicchitelli, Eugène P. McFadden, Fabia Merlini, Lucia Ansani, Gabriele Guardigli, Alessandro Bettini, Giovanni Parrinello, Eric Boersma, Roberto Ferrari, and for the STRATEGY Investigators
JAMA. 2005;293(17):2109-2117.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2005 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.