 |
|
Rebuttal
Spencer B. King III, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2593-2594.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Lobbying for medical or interventional therapy for chronic angina pectoris is an artificial exercise, but hopefully this discussion has been informative. Appropriately targeted secondary preventive therapy is essential for all patients with CAD. "Medical therapy vs interventional therapy," as in the AVERT trial,1 in which effective drugs were withheld from the intervention group, should never be done again. Stent placement is never a substitute for appropriately targeted medical therapy for atherosclerosis. I have also readily admitted that PCI is not needed in all patients who receive it; however, withholding PCI in patients with angina and resorting to a formulaic stepwise "lifestyle modification" to include restriction of necessary or simply pleasurable activity is equally inappropriate if a reliable method to relieve ischemia and the resulting angina is readily available. For patients without symptoms, the bar for performing PCI should be set high and interventions limited to . . . [Full Text of this Article]
RELATED ARTICLES
The Case for Medical Treatment in Chronic Stable Coronary Artery Disease
David T. Nash
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2587-2589.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Angioplasty Is Better Than Medical Therapy for Alleviating Chronic Angina Pectoris
Spencer B. King, III
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2589-2592.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Rebuttal
David T. Nash
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2592-2593.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
