 |
|
Evaluating Patients With Persistent Chest Pain and No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease—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: In response to Dr Seiden, the timing of translation of new research findings into clinical practice is always an issue of debate. When a body of evidence is ready for general use in clinical care will vary according to who is asked. Current evidence that supports coronary reactivity testing used in the patients in our article includes prognosis data documenting a 16% 5-year major adverse cardiac event rate in patients with signs and symptoms of ischemia with no obstructive CAD,1 suggesting that reassurance in this population is no longer appropriate. In addition, contemporary safety data have demonstrated that the risk of modern flow reserve testing in the hands of trained interventional cardiologists is lower than the risk of the condition, as reviewed in our article, and therefore can be considered in appropriate cases.
Coronary reactivity testing provided additional diagnostic information that was used for treatments that resulted in . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Anita Phan, MD, MA;
Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, MS;
C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD
merz@cshs.org
Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Los Angeles, California
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Angina With "Normal" Coronary Arteries: A Changing Philosophy
Raffaele Bugiardini and C. Noel Bairey Merz
JAMA. 2005;293(4):477-484.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED LETTERS
Evaluating Patients With Persistent Chest Pain and No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease
Steven W. Seiden
JAMA. 2009;302(6):622.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evaluating Patients With Persistent Chest Pain and No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease
John F. Beltrame and Peter Ganz
JAMA. 2009;302(6):622-623.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
