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. 8, February 22, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (1)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Revascularization
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Surgery
 •Surgical Interventions
 •Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery
 •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?

Wish List and REALITY

Choice of Stents and End Points for Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions

Sorin J. Brener, MD

JAMA. 2006;295:937-938.

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

In this issue of JAMA, Morice and colleagues1 present the results of the much anticipated REALITY trial, a prospective, randomized, nonblinded (operator) comparison of the sirolimus-eluting stent and the paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary artery disease. Among the 1353 patients enrolled, nearly a third had diabetes mellitus, 40% had a previous infarction, and one quarter presented with unstable angina. The study protocol called for the randomization of 1 or 2 lesions (38% of patients) in (surprisingly) relatively small vessels (mean, 2.4 mm) to paclitaxel-eluting stent or sirolimus-eluting stent with independently conducted angiographic and clinical follow-up at 8 and 12 months, respectively. Of note, more than 90% of the patients returned for angiographic follow-up, an unusually high rate for this kind of trial.

With respect to the primary end point of the trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliation: Department of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.



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 ARTICLE

Sirolimus- vs Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: The REALITY Trial: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Marie-Claude Morice, Antonio Colombo, Bernhard Meier, Patrick Serruys, Corrado Tamburino, Giulio Guagliumi, Eduardo Sousa, Hans-Peter Stoll, and for the REALITY Trial Investigators
JAMA. 2006;295(8):895-904.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Drug-eluting stent thrombosis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: is it always a problem?
Godet et al.
Br J Anaesth 2008;100:472-477.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Multislice Computed Tomography After Left Main Drug-Eluting Stenting: Are We Putting the CarT Before the Horse?
Kimmelstiel
Circulation 2006;114:616-619.
FULL TEXT  

Sirolimus vs. Paclitaxel Stents: Little Difference in REALITY
Journal Watch Cardiology 2006;2006:3-3.
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.