Abstract
In Reply. —Drs Guerra and Viswanath question the relevance to current practice of our findings from the BARI study of higher repeat revascularization rates in patients assigned to PTCA vs those assigned to CABG. It is possible, based on the findings from STRESS trials,1,2that stent use could have reduced the need for repeat revascularization in diabetic patients in the BARI trial. However, even if stents had been available in the BARI, it seems highly unlikely based on the STRESS results that rates of repeat revascularization would have been similar for patients who received CABG or PTCA. In the STRESS trials, the reported rate of fi-month target lesion revascularization (repeat PTCA or CABG) among patients who received stents was 13%.2This rate was only 2% in BARI patients assigned to CABG. Thus, despite a markedly worse baseline profile, including more extensive coronary disease, BARI patients who initially received CABG had
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
