Underuse of revascularisation in acute coronary syndromes

Editorial

Franz-Josef Neumann et al. Heart. 2007 Feb.

. 2007 Feb;93(2):147-8.

doi: 10.1136/hrt.2006.092643.

Abstract

Is coronary revascularisation being underused in patients at highest risk, and overused in those at lower risk?

Intervention in acute coronary syndromes: do patients undergo intervention on the basis of their risk characteristics? The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE).
Fox KA, Anderson FA Jr, Dabbous OH, Steg PG, López-Sendón J, Van de Werf F, Budaj A, Gurfinkel EP, Goodman SG, Brieger D; GRACE investigators. Fox KA, et al. Heart. 2007 Feb;93(2):177-82. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2005.084830. Epub 2006 Jun 6. Heart. 2007. PMID: 16757543 Free PMC article.

1. Boersma E, for The Primary Coronary Angioplasty vs Thrombolysis Group. Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in‐hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J 200627779–788. - PubMed
1. Keeley E C, Boura J A, Grines C L. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet 200336113–20. - PubMed
1. Betriu A, Masotti M. Comparison of mortality rates in acute myocardial infarction treated by percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolysis. Am J Cardiol 200595100–101. - PubMed
1. de Winter R J, Windhausen F, Cornel J H, for the Invasive versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes (ICTUS) Investigators et al Early invasive versus selectively invasive management for acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 20053531095–1104. - PubMed
1. Bertrand M E, Simoons M L, Fox K A.et al Management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST‐segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2002231809–1840. - PubMed