 |
|
Behavioral Factors, Bias, and Practice Guidelines in the Decision to Use Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Stable Coronary Artery Disease
Mauro Moscucci, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(15):1573-1575.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In September of 2007, it will be exactly 30 years since the first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed by Andreas Gruntzig. In the initial report of his first 5 cases,1 Gruntzig concluded that the technique, "if it proves successful in long-term follow-up studies, may widen the indications for coronary angiography and provide another treatment for patients with angina pectoris." Despite the exponential growth in the number of PCI procedures during the next 3 decades, it took 15 years to complete the first of those long-term follow-up studies2 and an additional 15 years to complete the most current one.3 As of today, while available data have supported the superiority of PCI when compared with medical therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes, its effectiveness in improving outcomes beyond a relief of angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) remains unproven. In addition, recent data have . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
RELATED ARTICLE
Cardiologists' Use of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Stable Coronary Artery Disease
Grace A. Lin, R. Adams Dudley, and Rita F. Redberg
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(15):1604-1609.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Cardiologists' Attitudes About Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Journal Watch Cardiology 2007;2007:7-7.
FULL TEXT
|
