In addition, there is increasing interest in the comparison of EES (Xience, Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois) versus SES (Cypher, Cordis Corporation, Miami Lakes, Florida).\n\nMethods The ISAR-TEST 4 (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents-4) was a randomized clinical trial with broad inclusion criteria, enrolling 2,603 patients at 2 clinics in Munich, Germany.

Patients were randomized to either biodegradable polymer (n = 1,299) or permanent polymer stents (n = 1,304); patients treated with permanent polymer stents were randomly allocated to EES (n = 652) or SES (n = 652). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.\n\nResults Clinical events continued to accrue at a low rate out to 3 years Nepicastat purchase in all groups. Overall, there was no significant difference between biodegradable polymer and permanent polymer DES with regard

to the primary Akt inhibitor endpoint (20.1% vs. 20.9%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80 to 1.13; p = 0.59). Rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis were also similar in both groups (1.2% vs. 1.7%, respectively; HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.39; p = 0.32). In patients treated with permanent polymer stents, EES were comparable to SES with regard to the primary endpoint (19.6% vs. 22.2%, respectively; HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.11; p = 0.26) as well as definite/probable stent thrombosis (1.4% vs. 1.9%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.78; p = 0.51).\n\nConclusions Biodegradable polymer and permanent polymer DES are associated with similar clinical outcomes at 3 years. In addition, EES are comparable to SES in terms of overall clinical efficacy and safety. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic

Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting STents [ISAR-TEST 4]: Prospective, Randomized Trial of 3-limus Agent-eluting Stents With Different Polymer Coatings; NCT00598676) (J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:1325-31) (C) 2011 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation”
“Global progress to reduce maternal deaths from find more unsafe abortion h inadequate. Clarifying abortion values and attitudes, using updated WHO safe abortion technical guidance, networking with other providers, and securing adequate abortion and contraceptive supplies can support providers to put induced abortion, postabortion care, and contraceptive skills into practice. Revised national guidelines based on updated WHO guidance can support women’s healthcare providers to offer safe abortion for all legal indications and other measures to protect women’s life and health. Recommendations of the United Nations and partner agencies can be used to support integration of abortion into other health programs, to expand provision of abortion care by midlevel providers, such as midwives, and to advocate for resources and results based on an expanded reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health Continuum of Care.