Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass graft surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: The VA AWESOME multicenter registry: comparison with the randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the three-year survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in physician-directed and patient-choice registries with the Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME) randomized trial results. BACKGROUND: The AWESOME multicenter randomized trial and registry compared the long-term survival after PCI and CABG for the treatment of patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one additional risk factor for adverse outcome with CABG. The randomized trial demonstrated comparable three-year survival. METHODS: Over a five-year period (1995 to 2000), 2,431 patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one of five risk factors (prior heart surgery, myocardial infarction within seven days, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35, age >70 years, intra-aortic balloon required to stabilize) were identified. By physician consensus, 1,650 patients formed a physician-directed registry assigned to CABG (692), PCI (651) or further medical therapy (307), and 781 were angiographically eligible for random allocation; 454 of these patients constitute the randomized trial, and the remaining 327 constitute a patient choice registry. Survival for CABG and PCI was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS: The CABG and PCI 36-month survival rates for randomized patients were 79% and 80%, respectively. The CABG and PCI 36-month survival rates were both 76% for the physician-directed subgroup; comparable survival rates for the patient-choice subgroup were 80% and 89%, respectively. None of the global log-rank tests for survival demonstrated significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Both registries support the randomized trial conclusion: PCI is an alternative to CABG for some medically refractory high-risk patients.     

Patient satisfaction and symptom relief after anal dilatation

Anal dilatation is used as a simple method of treatment and has been used for both anal fissure and haemorrhoids. This study examined longer-term results among a cohort of 162 patients, 132 of whom responded to a detailed questionnaire, an 82% response (66 patients were male; age range 17–75 years, median 42 years). Follow-up ranged from 16 months to 36 months (median 27 months) after anal dilatation (68 patients for fissure, 32 for haemorrhoids, and 32 for both). In the early months after dilatation, 83% had symptomatic improvement and 76% remained improved. Five (7%) patients with fissure and 11 with haemorrhoids (17%) required further hospital treatment, while 10% and 17%, respectively, had received further treatment from their general practitioners (GPs). Seventy-one percent said they would have a further anal dilation if symptoms recurred. There was no difference in results obtained by surgeons of different seniority. Complications – bleeding (29%) and difficulty controlling flatus (15%) or faeces (8%) – resolved in all cases. The results of anal dilatation for fissure are generally satisfactory in the longer term, with a trend toward better symptom relief in patients with fissure compared with those with haemorrhoids. We do not recommend anal dilatation as the sole treatment of patients with haemorrhoids, but it may be a useful adjunct to other treatments such as banding or sclerotherapy. Morbidity was generally acceptable and the majority of our patients would be prepared to have this procedure again if their symptoms were to return. Accepted: 14 September 1998     

Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID)—the Irish Experience

Journal of Clinical Immunology -