You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 294 No. 22, December 14, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on ISI (1)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Revascularization
 •Evidence-Based Medicine
 •Surgical Interventions
 •Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery
 •Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction
 •Cardiovascular Intervention
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Routine vs Selective Invasive Strategies in Acute Coronary Syndromes

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their Review, Dr Mehta and colleagues1 performed a meta-analysis that compared a routine invasive strategy with a selective invasive strategy in patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The authors examined and pooled the results of 7 trials involving more than 9000 patients. They concluded that a routine invasive approach was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in overall mortality, although there was a significant increase in mortality during the index hospitalization.

Trials and registries that are included in a meta-analysis must be high quality, have reliable outcome data, and incorporate contemporary practices. A concern with this analysis is that it included several older trials (TIMI IIIB,2 VANQWISH,3 and MATE4). These trials were performed before the era of glycoprotein (Gp) IIb/IIIa inhibitors and stents, which have been shown to improve adverse outcomes. The use of Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH
bavrya@ccf.org
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Cleveland, Ohio

Dharam J. Kumbhani, MD, SM
Department of Internal Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia


RELATED ARTICLES

Routine vs Selective Invasive Strategies in Acute Coronary Syndromes
Enrique V. Carbajal
JAMA. 2005;294(22):2845.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Routine vs Selective Invasive Strategies in Acute Coronary Syndromes—Reply
Shamir R. Mehta and Salim Yusuf
JAMA. 2005;294(22):2845-2846.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Routine vs Selective Invasive Strategies in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Collaborative Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials
Shamir R. Mehta, Christopher P. Cannon, Keith A. A. Fox, Lars Wallentin, William E. Boden, Rudolf Spacek, Petr Widimsky, Peter A. McCullough, David Hunt, Eugene Braunwald, and Salim Yusuf
JAMA. 2005;293(23):2908-2917.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2005 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.