This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by LoGerfo, F. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by LoGerfo, F. W. Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Other Ethics and Policy Restenosis Carotid Stenosis Embolic stroke Carotid endarterectomy Angioplasty and Stenting

(Circulation. 2007;116:1596-1601.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.

Controversies in Cardiovascular Medicine

Has the expanded use of carotid stents been justified?

Carotid Stents: Unleashed, Unproven

Frank W. LoGerfo, MD

From Harvard Medical School, Division of Vascular Surgery, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass.

Correspondence to Frank W. LoGerfo, MD, William V. McDermott Distinguished Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Division of Vascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 110 Francis St, Suite 5B, Boston, MA 02215. E-mail flogerfo@bidmc.harvard.edu

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

	Introduction

 
Primarily on the basis of data derived from the Stenting and Angioplasty With Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) trial,¹ the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of carotid stents (CASs) in high-risk patients. The SAPPHIRE trial was published and much heralded as a randomized trial demonstrating that CASs were not inferior to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Yet, the more recent Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis randomized trial of CASs compared with CEA had to be stopped because the stroke rate with stents was so high that it triggered the safety guidelines of the study design.² How can we explain the striking difference in outcome between these 2 studies, and how did it happen that the FDA was so convinced of the quality and validity of the SAPPHIRE trial that it granted approval for CASs? An examination of the SAPPHIRE trial—its conduct, data collection and analysis, the circumstances of publication, the presentation to the FDA Advisory Panel, and its consequent approval—is the primary focus of this article. This is a case study of the flaws in our system for the evaluation and approval of medical devices that warrant serious reflection on our ability to properly create and act on accurate information and live up to our commitment to evidence-based decision making.

Response by Samuelson et al p 1601

As it now stands, existing studies leave us with the unfortunate but not unreasonable conclusion that no scientific basis exists for the . . . [Full Text of this Article]