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
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Revascularization
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Quality of Care
 •Evidence-Based Medicine
 •Surgery
 •Surgical Interventions
 •Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery
 •Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction
 •Cardiovascular Intervention
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Routine vs Selective Invasive Strategies in Acute Coronary Syndromes—Reply

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

In Reply: The meta-analysis by Drs Bavry and Kumbhani1 using selective inclusion of trials of invasive vs conservative therapy performed after 1999 is consistent with the overall results of our meta-analysis, which includes the totality of data from all of the randomized trials addressing this question. Figure 5 of our article reports a subgroup analysis of trials performed after 1999 and shows consistent benefit of the invasive strategy in these latter trials. However, the analysis by Bavry and Kumbhani did not show a mortality benefit at 12 months and included a trial that allocated patients to management strategy according to day of the week, potentially producing a biased result in favor of invasive therapy.2 Second, randomized trials evaluating the use of stents have not found stent use to reduce mortality or MI.3 Third, the overwhelming majority of patients in the recent trials did not actually use Gp IIb/IIIIa inhibitors: only . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Shamir R. Mehta, MD, MSc
smehta@mcmaster.ca
Department of Interventional Cardiology

Salim Yusuf, DPhil
Department of Medicine
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Routine vs Selective Invasive Strategies in Acute Coronary Syndromes
Anthony A. Bavry and Dharam J. Kumbhani
JAMA. 2005;294(22):2844-2845.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

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 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.