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  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Surgical Interventions  • Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Cardiovascular Intervention  • Revascularization  • Alert me on articles by topic

Mike Mitka

JAMA. 2006;296:2077.

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

The appearance a few years ago of drug-eluting stents as a tool for the treatment of coronary vessel stenosis was hailed by most of the cardiology community as a major advance over bare-metal stents. Now, findings from 2 studies presented in September at the World Congress of Cardiology in Barcelona, Spain, have dampened that enthusiasm.

The studies' findings give ammunition to those who suggest percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents was being oversold in light of a lack of evidence surrounding long-term safety and efficacy—especially in patients with stable chronic angina, a relatively benign condition.

Although drug-eluting stents were hailed as a major advance for treating coronary vessel stenosis, their safety and efficacy compared to those of bare metal stents are under question.

"With about 2 million being performed annually, PCIs are being overused," warned Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, a professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

REPORT FROM BARCELONA