Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

To Cath or Not to Cath

To Cath or Not to Cath Editorials represent the opinions EDITORIALS of the authors and JAMA and not those of the American Medical Association. That Is No Longer the Question subsequent myocardial infarction, severe angina, and rehos- Deepak L. Bhatt, MD pitalization. There was a trend toward mortality reduction during the follow-up period with an invasive approach, NSTABLE ANGINA AND NON–ST-SEGMENT ELEVA- although an early mortality hazard was noted. The benefits tion myocardial infarction, the most frequent of the invasive strategy appear to be particularly marked among manifestations of acute coronary syndromes patients with elevated levels of biomarkers such as troponin. U(ACS), remain common reasons for hospital ad- As with any meaningful clinical investigation, this analy- mission. Despite advances in therapy, ACS are associated sis spawns additional questions. The finding of an early mor- with substantial morbidity and mortality. Throughout the tality hazard with a routine invasive strategy deserves care- 1990s, a debate raged within the cardiology community about ful study, and approaches to mitigate or abolish this early whether an “invasive” approach was superior to a “conser- risk must be explored. A substantial portion of this early vative” approach in the initial management of ACS. The in- mortality risk is most likely due to http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

To Cath or Not to Cath

JAMA , Volume 293 (23) – Jun 15, 2005

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/to-cath-or-not-to-cath-BmFxqyFmW0

References (34)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2005 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.293.23.2935
pmid
15956640
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Editorials represent the opinions EDITORIALS of the authors and JAMA and not those of the American Medical Association. That Is No Longer the Question subsequent myocardial infarction, severe angina, and rehos- Deepak L. Bhatt, MD pitalization. There was a trend toward mortality reduction during the follow-up period with an invasive approach, NSTABLE ANGINA AND NON–ST-SEGMENT ELEVA- although an early mortality hazard was noted. The benefits tion myocardial infarction, the most frequent of the invasive strategy appear to be particularly marked among manifestations of acute coronary syndromes patients with elevated levels of biomarkers such as troponin. U(ACS), remain common reasons for hospital ad- As with any meaningful clinical investigation, this analy- mission. Despite advances in therapy, ACS are associated sis spawns additional questions. The finding of an early mor- with substantial morbidity and mortality. Throughout the tality hazard with a routine invasive strategy deserves care- 1990s, a debate raged within the cardiology community about ful study, and approaches to mitigate or abolish this early whether an “invasive” approach was superior to a “conser- risk must be explored. A substantial portion of this early vative” approach in the initial management of ACS. The in- mortality risk is most likely due to

Journal

JAMAAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jun 15, 2005

There are no references for this article.