EBQ:Routine vs an Invasive strategy in ACS: Difference between revisions
Ostermayer (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Ostermayer (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
==Conclusion== | ==Conclusion== | ||
Routine PCI reduced recurrent MI, severe angina, and rehospitalization over a mean follow-up of 17 months when compared to a more conservative selective strategy of PCI. | |||
==Major Points== | ==Major Points== | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
==CME== | ==CME== | ||
<quiz display=simple> | <quiz display=simple> | ||
{ | {In the patient with an acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, which of the following constitutes optimal therapy? | ||
|type="()"} | |type="()"} | ||
Revision as of 05:36, 11 January 2014
incomplete Journal Club Article
Mehta, Shamir et al. "Routine vs Selective Invasive Strategies in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes". JAMA. 2005. 293(23):2908-2917.
PubMed Full text PDF
PubMed Full text PDF
Clinical Question
Does percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for all patients with unstable angina or Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) reduce death and recurrent myocardial infarction in comparison to only performing PCI in patient with recurrent or inducible ischemia
Conclusion
Routine PCI reduced recurrent MI, severe angina, and rehospitalization over a mean follow-up of 17 months when compared to a more conservative selective strategy of PCI.
Major Points
Study Design
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Interventions
Outcome
Primary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes
Subgroup analysis
Criticisms & Further Discussion
Funding
CME