cardiology careers collections past issues search home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008; 51:330, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.10.015
© 2008 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Menichelli, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Menichelli, M.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

CORRESPONDENCE: LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Reply

Maurizio Menichelli, MD*

* San Camillo Hospital of Rome, via della Grande Muraglia 46, Rome 00144, Italy (Email: menichelli747{at}yahoo.com).


We appreciate the effort made by Dr. Pan in emphasizing the need for consistent end points in the medical literature. He refers to the "formidable barrier" reported by Dr. Cutlip (1) in understanding results across clinical trials. We agree that consistency across well-considered end point definitions is critical.

In our trial (2), we used a device-oriented composite definition of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). However, as Dr. Cutlip reported, "composite acronyms such as MACE have been used so frequently with so many variations in definition that the ARC recommends that the term be avoided altogether."

In designing the SESAMI (Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, we tried to establish consistency among end point definitions. Indeed, this trial was among the first to adopt and utilize the new Academic Research Consortium definition of stent thrombosis—well before Dr. Cutlip’s article was published.

As far as inclusion criteria are concerned, all of the patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and were eligible for primary angioplasty. We adopted the same strategy for all the patients once they were in our catheterization laboratory; however, a small portion of them had previously received thrombolytic therapy, as reported in Table 1 of our original study (2).

Dr. Pan surmises correctly that decimal point was misplaced in the standard deviation value for the sirolimus-eluting stent diameter in Table 2 of our study (2). The correct value is 0.034.


    References
 Top
 References
 

  1. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. for the Academic Research Consortium Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions Circulation 2007;115:2344-2351.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Menichelli M, Parma A, Pucci E, et al. Randomized trial of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction (SESAMI) J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1924-1930.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Related Article

Concerns in the SESAMI Trial
Xiaohong Pan
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008 51: 329-330. [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Menichelli, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Menichelli, M.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

 
  cardiology careers collections past issues search home