I am getting different info on the street....the
occurence of restenosis seems to be higher than with the
Palmaz-Schatz stent...but, cardiologists seems to like the
other stents better because they are easier to
It is unfortunate....HIABLM seems to be
habitually rude....so, it becomes necessary to put him in
his place, as you can see many people have
done....its always that one person who loves to stir up the
pot....the rest of us just want to get along and have good
exchange of information and opinions!
By the way,
restenosis is the recurrence of a stenosis condition as in a
heart valve or vessel. Stenosis is the narrowing or
constriction of a passage or orifice.
Hope that helps!
After clearing an artery, the blockage can
reoccur or the vessel can collapse,causing the artery to
be blocked again, that is restinosis. A stent (looks
like a really high tech ball point pen spring) is put
in place to hold the blood vessel open and/or
hopefully to keep it from getting blocked again.
The two trials cited were FDA required randomized
trials that each company had to perform and show
equivalence to an already approved product (Palmaz-Schatz) in
order to receive approval to market in the U.S. They
both have a very high degree of validity - hundreds of
patients, dozens of sites, strict protocol, randomized,
follow-up by independent lab, etc.Bottom line is under
similar circumstances, the newer generation stents with
good radial strength and vessel wall coverage, all
yield very good long term results and there isn't one
that is superior to the others. There are, however,
significant differences in performance attributes -
trackability, visibility, size options, etc.
I thought this was getting to be a good board
where those of us without a strong medical background
could learn something about this company.
sorry to see the attempt by some to become "board
monitors" who would discourage some of the recent
posts...and are ugly about it. Maybe someday there will be a
Yahoo screen similar to my e-mail screen so I can avoid
some of these messages without even having to scroll
through...it would be nice!
I have appreciated those
who have tried to bring up products and markets.
But what is retinosis, and what is the importance of
this? What journal published the studies that
determined no difference in retinosis between different
stents? I assume from the post that these are published
in "A" level medical research journals, so that
should have significant impact...but statistics don't
always overcome perceptions.
Or are these
company-backed clinical tests?
Any given study, no
matter how good, is never without limitations and
certain threats to validity. While I don't do medical
research, I am a researcher and understand the strengths
and limitations of statistics, so I would appreciate
more information on these studies if
At least to me...the question out of this is how do
these issues affect BSX and their product lines? I
apologize for my lack of medical knowledge and appreciate
help anyone can give! Thanks in advance.
"the other competitive stents to J&J are easier
to place but you still get a much greater instance
of restenosis....hmmmmmm...interesting wouldn't you
Let's see,......'greater instance',..........hmmmmmm,
that translates to, 'considerably large
So, you're saying that stents other than Palmaz pose
the, 'considerably larger example' of restenosis
syndrome that threatens to plague society?
read that in your latest copy of "Stents Weekly"?
there's more to life than cardiology,
HIABLM....and, by the way, the other competitive stents to J&J
are easier to place but you still get a much greater
instance of restenosis....hmmmmmm...interesting wouldn't
HIABL was focusing on JnJ's Cardiology franchise,
ie, thru Cordis. JnJ is probably a good investment,
but not necessarily for its Cordis division (at least
Now, should they buy AVE, as has
been rumored off and on for several years (of course,
it was $12 presplit once), they would be back in the
stent business. But it would cost several billion to
get back in, with additive annual profits of
potentially several hundred million per year. Hmmm.....
Either you two can't
read or are just plain ignorant, or are you one in the
same? Snorky, you accused BSX of practices that you
believe are OK as long as you are J&J, Pfizer, or Bard. I
straightened you out on that but you don't get it. You really
get it. My previous post wasn't about stock
at all but somehow that was what you interpeted, and
Hamnegger, you blindly followed him like a
J&J and Pfizer bought into the Minimally Invasive
Medical Device Industry and have squandered their
investment IN THAT INDUSTRY. Bard self destructed long ago
and will not recover unless they change their name.
They were indicted and found guilty of releasing
product without FDA approval about 6 years
BSX, MDT, GDT, and AVEI, compete IN THE SAME INDUSTRY.
These and some other companies specialize and will
therefore better serve their customers WITHIN THEIR
Now you two have to change your names to avoid public