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 study1 comparing vein graft patency between patients receiving gene therapy with edifoligide vs placebo, the PREVENT IV investigators report a 1-year incidence of vein graft occlusion of 26.1% in the edifoligide group and 26.5% in the placebo group. Other contemporary multicenter angiographic studies in patients with a similar burden of coronary disease have found an incidence of 1-year vein graft occlusion of less than 15%,2-3 substantially lower than that observed by the PREVENT IV investigators. In noting this difference, the authors suggest that the higher occlusion rate they observed may be due to more extensive and diffuse anatomic disease. To fully understand the role of target vessel characteristics on VGF, it would be helpful for the patency results to be stratified by quality and size of the target vessel.

An alternative explanation for the poor graft patency seen in this study may be . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Nimesh D. Desai, MD
nimesh.desai@utoronto.ca

Stephen E. Fremes, MD
Division of Cardiac Surgery
Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario



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
George T. Lau and Leonard Kritharides
JAMA. 2006;295(13):1513-1514.
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.