>Death is death. Clearly it was not treatable (unless you are claiming that trial patients got substandard care) - whether it was undetectable restenosis, untreatable restenosis of some form or xxxx. (My bad choice to not put an e.g. before the "untreatable restenosis" in the original post - I thought people would be able to figure it out) And BTW late stage thrombosis is treatable to some extent now that we know it is a problem - e.g. with anticoags.<
I’ll make one last post in this thread and then you may have the last word.
1. The raw death rate is not necessarily equal between DES’s and BMS’s just because one meta-analysis seized upon by JNJ said so. As you know, the selection of trials to include in a meta-analysis makes a big difference.
2. Much of the data (especially longer-term data) on BMS outcomes comes from older trials where physician proficiency in the implantation procedure may not have been up to today’s levels.
3. The DES manufacturers themselves, with the notable exception of JNJ, are treating late thrombosis as a serious problem that they do not yet understand and is thought to be unique to DES’s. For instance, MDT is running an 8,000-patient trial of Endeavor vs Cypher with a primary endpoint of thrombosis rate at three years.
4. ABT is moving full steam ahead with its bioabsorbable DES, whose main benefit relative to regular DES’s is that there is nothing left behind to cause late thrombosis (#msg-14261970). It is not a coincidence that ABT’s big push for this DES platform comes at a time when late thrombosis has emerged as the biggest issue in interventional cardiology.
Market Data 
Markets 
