Clinical Outcomes Following Drug‐Eluting versus Bare Metal Stent Implantation for Lesion Subsets Excluded from Pivotal Clinical Trials: Findings from the GHOST Study (Guthrie Health System Off‐Label StenT Study)

Abstract

The curves in Figure 2 of the above-mentioned article were missing. The error is regretted. The corrected figures are reproduced below. Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier curves representing the estimated incidence of death (A), death or myocardial infarction (B), stent thrombosis (C), target vessel revascularization (D), and major adverse cardiac events (E) in patients who received drug-eluting stents and those who received bare metal stents. The median duration of follow-up for each of the study end-points was as follows: death 866 days, death or MI 606 days, stent thrombosis 583 days, TVR 422 days, MACE 450 days. Numbers of patients at risk in each of the study groups are shown at various follow-up durations. The Y-axis represents the proportion of patients who suffered the clinical outcome. For each study end-point, 1-year outcomes in the DES and BMS groups are shown.

2-Year Results of the AUTAX (Austrian Multivessel TAXUS-Stent) Registry

“…However, current data suggest that the use of DES in most lesion subsets is at least as safe as bare-metal stent use and clearly more efficacious than the use of bare-metal stents (24). However, current data suggest that the use of DES in most lesion subsets is at least as safe as bare-metal stent use and clearly more efficacious than the use of bare-metal stents (24).…”

Long‐term outcome after drug‐eluting stent implantation in unselected population: ROME and UDINE Experience (The RUDI Registry)

“…The introduction of DES in the clinical practice has dramatically reduced the incidence of in‐stent restenosis and the incidence of coronary revascularization compared with BMS [10, 11]. These results have been obtained from several RCTs that demonstrated the safety and efficacy of DES, the majority of them, in a strictly selected populations with the exclusion of high clinical and angiographic restenosis risk population [12].…”

Guthrie Health Off‐Label Stent (GHOST) Registry

“…Several analyses from the Guthrie Health Off‐Label StenT Registry (GHOST), an ongoing prospective observational single‐center database, have been published in the Journal of Interventional Cardiology 1–4 and other journals 5–9 . Our outcomes analyses have focused on the assessment of key clinical end‐points in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).…”

“…To quantitate the degree of overestimation in prior analyses, we compared the MACE follow‐up duration by the old and new methods in 4,336 index PCI procedures. Some of our prior analyses were restricted to patients who underwent PCI between 2001–2003, 3, 7, 9 2001–2005, 4 2001–2006, 8 and 2001–2007 2, 5 . Therefore, we compared the old and new methods in subsets of patients who underwent PCI at different time periods.…”