Drug-eluting stents appear superior to bare metal stents for vein-graft PCI in vessels up to a stent diameter of 4 mm.

BACKGROUND: Research trials have shown improved short-term outcome with drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), primarily by reducing target vessel revascularization (TVR) for in-stent restenosis. We compared the outcomes in patients undergoing SVG stent implantation treated with DES or BMS. In exploratory analyses we investigated the influence of stent generation and diameter. METHODS: Data were obtained from a prospective database of 657 patients who underwent PCI for SVG lesions between 2003 and 2011. A total of 344 patients had PCI with BMS and 313 with DES. Propensity scores were developed based on 15 observed baseline covariates in a logistic regression model with stent type as the dependent variable. The nearest-neighbour-matching algorithm with Greedy 5-1 Digit Matching was used to produce two patient cohorts of 313 patients each. We assessed major adverse cardiac events (MACE) out to a median of 3.3 years (interquartile range: 2.1-4.1). MACE was defined as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), TVR and stroke. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in MACE between the two groups in favour of DES (17.9% DES vs. 31.2% BMS group; p = 0.0017) over the 5-year follow-up period. MACE was driven by increased TVR in the BMS group. There was no difference in death, MI or stroke. Adjusted Cox analysis confirmed a decreased risk of MACE for DES compared with BMS 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.94), with no difference in the hazard of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.77-1.68). However, when looking at stent diameters greater than 4 mm, no difference was seen in MACE rates between BMS and DES. CONCLUSIONS: Overall in our cohort of patients who had PCI for SVG disease, DES use resulted in lower MACE rates compared with BMS over a 5-year follow-up period; however, for stent diameters over 4 mm no difference in MACE rates was seen

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field