In a joint venture, the American College of Cardiology Foundation and several other organizations have published an extensive evidence-based document outlining when revascularization is clinically appropriate. Of 180 clinical scenarios, each was graded 1-9, with 7-9 indicating clinical appropriateness of revascularization (likely to improve health outcomes or survival), and 1-3 inappropriate (unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival). The full document is available at (link). In general, the use of revascularization for acute coronary syndromes, and for symptoms with ischemia, was considered appropriate. Inappropriate scenarios included asymptomatic patients, or those with low-risk findings on stress testing and minimal medical therapy.
Share This Post
Categories
Related Posts
While all of us see patients who smoke in their 70s or 80s, due to their limited lifespan from COPD, DM, malignancy, etc., and their expressed wishes to continue tobacco, we keep our admonitions to a minimum. We accept our patient has become learned enough through life to make their own decisions and accept whatever […]
Do you have a stack of journals piling up on your desk, beside your bed or in your email inbox? In 1950, medical knowledge was estimated to double every 50 years, but now the doubling time is every few months. At this rate, it is impossible to keep up with the literature, but a group […]
Fill in the Blanks: Q: “The diagnosis of type 2 MI is associated with a _____ prognosis. ___% of patients will live five years after their diagnosis.” The answer is a) POOR and b) a staggering 40%. I did not know that. However, what I am aware of is the ambiguity around Type 2 MIs and […]
Leave A Comment