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. 295 No. 13, April 5, 2006 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
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Surgery
 •Surgical Interventions
 •Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery
 •Genetics
 •Genetic Counseling/ Testing/ Therapy
 •Cardiovascular Intervention
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Efficacy and Safety of Edifoligide

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: In the PREVENT IV study,1 edifoligide did not affect the rate of VGF, and on the basis of angiographic data the PREVENT IV investigators concluded that edifoligide did not have an appreciable effect on neointimal hyperplasia. We believe it may be premature to conclude that the lack of clinical benefit is due to a failure to inhibit neointimal proliferation and suggest 3 alternative explanations.

First, remodeling of vein grafts in the early postoperative period is substantial2-3 and may confound the determination of intimal thickness by luminal angiography. Minor differences in the degree of remodeling of vein grafts could obscure effects on neointimal thickening.

Second, if neointimal proliferation was inhibited, as might be expected from preclinical studies of edifoligide,4 neointimal proliferation may be more relevant to later causes of VGF (such as providing a substrate for later atherodegenerative change in the vein graft) than to failure in the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

George T. Lau, MBBS
george.lau@email.cs.nsw.gov.au

Leonard Kritharides, MBBS, PhD
Concord Hospital
Sydney, Australia



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Efficacy and Safety of Edifoligide
Alessandro Parolari, Francesco Alamanni, Elena Tremoli, and Paolo Biglioli
JAMA. 2006;295(13):1513.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Efficacy and Safety of Edifoligide
Nimesh D. Desai and Stephen E. Fremes
JAMA. 2006;295(13):1514.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Efficacy and Safety of Edifoligide—Reply
John H. Alexander, Robert A. Harrington, T. Bruce Ferguson, Eric D. Peterson, C. Michael Gibson, Nicholas T. Kouchoukos, and for the PREVENT IV Investigators
JAMA. 2006;295(13):1514-1515.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Efficacy and Safety of Edifoligide, an E2F Transcription Factor Decoy, for Prevention of Vein Graft Failure Following Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: PREVENT IV: A Randomized Controlled Trial
PREVENT IV Investigators
JAMA. 2005;294(19):2446-2454.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2006 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.