Bypass surgery versus stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease in patients with unstable angina compared with stable angina

BACKGROUND: Earlier reports have shown that the outcome of balloon angioplasty or bypass surgery in unstable angina is less favorable than in stable angina. Recent improvements in percutaneous treatment (stent implantation) and bypass surgery (arterial grafts) warrant reevaluation of the relative merits of either technique in treatment of unstable angina. Methods and Results- Seven hundred fifty-five patients with stable angina were randomly assigned to coronary stenting (374) or bypass surgery (381), and 450 patients with unstable angina were randomly assigned to coronary stenting (226) or bypass surgery (224). All patients had multivessel disease considered to be equally treatable by either technique. Freedom from major adverse events, including death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular events, at 1 year was not different in unstable patients (91.2% versus 88.9%) and stable patients (90.4% versus 92.6%) treated, respectively, with coronary stenting or bypass surgery. Freedom from repeat revascularization at 1 year was similar in unstable and stable angina treated with stenting (79.2% versus 78.9%) or bypass surgery (96.3% versus 96%) but was significantly higher in both unstable and stable patients treated with stenting (16.8% versus 16.9%) compared with bypass surgery (3.6% versus 3.5%). Neither the difference in costs between stented or bypassed stable or unstable angina ($2594 versus$3627) nor the cost-effectiveness was significantly different at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in rates of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular event at 1 year in patients with unstable angina and multivessel disease treated with either stented angioplasty or bypass surgery compared with patients with stable angina. The rate of repeat revascularization of both unstable and stable angina was significantly higher in patients with stents

A one -Year Multicenter Study of Simvastatin in the Treatment of Hypercholesterolemia

A 1-year prospective study was conducted in 475 hypercholesterolaemic men and women who received simvastatin monotherapy 10-40 mg daily for 3 months followed by additional lipid-lowering medication after this period, if necessary, to reach a target of plasma cholesterol <5.3 mmol/l. Of these, 403 subjects completed 1 year of follow-up. By the end of the 3-month monotherapy period, the following percentage mean changes were seen (with 95% confidence intervals): total cholesterol (TC) -31% (-30 to -32%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol -39% (-38 to -40%), triglycerides -14% (-11 to -17%) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol +12% (+11 to +14%). These levels were maintained for the remainder of the study. When subjects with a baseline TC of 6.5-7.8 mmol/l were considered (n=89), 42.7% achieved the target TC levels on simvastatin monotherapy alone. Additional hypolipidaemic medication had no Significant impact on plasma lipid and lipoprotein levels. Simvastatin was well tolerated both as monotherapy and in combination

Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study)

BACKGROUND: Treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduces the rate of cardiovascular events among patients with left-ventricular dysfunction and those at high risk of such events. We assessed whether the ACE inhibitor perindopril reduced cardiovascular risk in a low-risk population with stable coronary heart disease and no apparent heart failure. METHODS: We recruited patients from October, 1997, to June, 2000. 13655 patients were registered with previous myocardial infarction (64%), angiographic evidence of coronary artery disease (61%), coronary revascularisation (55%), or a positive stress test only (5%). After a run-in period of 4 weeks, in which all patients received perindopril, 12218 patients were randomly assigned perindopril 8 mg once daily (n=6110), or matching placebo (n=6108). The mean follow-up was 4.2 years, and the primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Mean age of patients was 60 years (SD 9), 85% were male, 92% were taking platelet inhibitors, 62% beta blockers, and 58% lipid-lowering therapy. 603 (10%) placebo and 488 (8%) perindopril patients experienced the primary endpoint, which yields a 20% relative risk reduction (95% CI 9-29, p=0.0003) with perindopril. These benefits were consistent in all predefined subgroups and secondary endpoints. Perindopril was well tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with stable coronary heart disease without apparent heart failure, perindopril can significantly improve outcome. About 50 patients need to be treated for a period of 4 years to prevent one major cardiovascular event. Treatment with perindopril, on top of other preventive medications, should be considered in all patients with coronary heart disease