Comparative safety and efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stent: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents have emerged as the favored device for percutaneous coronary intervention. It is not clear if there are differences in the currently available drug-eluting stents. We performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate currently available data comparing sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, Current Contents, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as scientific meeting abstracts up to November 30, 2006. All randomized controlled trials comparing SES with PES and providing follow-up data of > or = 6 months were eligible for inclusion in our analysis. RESULTS: Data from 12 trials (number of patients 7455) were pooled. There was no difference in death (summary odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.61-1.25, P = .46), myocardial infarction (summary OR 0.92, 95% CI, 0.71-1.19, P = .51), or stent thrombosis (summary OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.40-1.40, P = .37) between SES and PES. The use of SES was associated with a significant reduction in angiographic restenosis (summary OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.78, P < .001), target vessel revascularization (5.66% vs 7.70%, summary OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = .002), or target lesion revascularization (summary OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.84, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with SES appear to have a significantly lower risk of restenosis and need for target vessel revascularization compared with those treated with PES. There is no significant difference between the 2 stents with respect to mortality, myocardial infarction, or early stent thrombosis.

Evaluation of hospital room assignment and acquisition of Clostridium difficile infection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Clostridium difficile spores persist in hospital environments for an extended period. We evaluated whether admission to a room previously occupied by a patient with C. difficile infection (CDI) increased the risk of acquiring CDI. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Medical intensive care unit (ICU) at a tertiary care hospital. METHODS: Patients admitted from January 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, were evaluated for a diagnosis of CDI 48 hours after ICU admission and within 30 days after ICU discharge. Medical, ICU, and pharmacy records were reviewed for other CDI risk factors. Admitted patients who did develop CDI were compared with admitted patients who did not. RESULTS: Among 1,844 patients admitted to the ICU, 134 CDI cases were identified. After exclusions, 1,770 admitted patients remained for analysis. Of the patients who acquired CDI after admission to the ICU, 4.6% had a prior occupant without CDI, whereas 11.0% had a prior occupant with CDI (P = .002). The effect of room on CDI acquisition remained a significant risk factor (P = .008) when Kaplan-Meier curves were used. The prior occupant's CDI status remained significant (p = .01; hazard ratio, 2.35) when controlling for the current patient's age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score, exposure to proton pump inhibitors, and antibiotic use. CONCLUSIONS: A prior room occupant with CDI is a significant risk factor for CDI acquisition, independent of established CDI risk factors. These findings have implications for room placement and hospital design.

The relative renal safety of iodixanol compared with low-osmolar contrast media: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the nephrotoxicity of the iso-osmolar contrast medium, iodixanol, to low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM). BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) is a common cause of in-hospital renal failure. A prior meta-analysis suggested that iodixanol (Visipaque, GE Healthcare, Princeton, New Jersey) was associated with less CI-AKI than LOCM, but this study was limited by ascertainment bias and did not include the most recent randomized controlled trials. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Current Contents, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1980 to November 30, 2008, for randomized controlled trials that compared the incidence of CI-AKI with either iodixanol or LOCM. Random-effects models were used to calculate summary risk ratios (RR) for CI-AKI, need for hemodialysis, and death. RESULTS: A total of 16 trials including 2,763 subjects were pooled. There was no significant difference in the incidence of CI-AKI in the iodixanol group than in the LOCM group overall (summary RR: 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56 to 1.12, p = 0.19). There was no significant difference in the rates of post-procedure hemodialysis or death. There was a reduction in CI-AKI when iodixanol was compared with ioxaglate (RR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.92; p = 0.022) and iohexol (RR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.56; p = 0.002), but no difference when compared with iopamidol (RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.66 to 2.18; p = 0.55), iopromide (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.85; p = 0.84), or ioversol (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.39; p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis including 2,763 subjects suggests that iodixanol, when compared with LOCM overall, is not associated with less CI-AKI. The relative renal safety of LOCM compared with iodixanol may vary based on the specific type of LOCM.