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. 300 No. 15, October 15, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 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 HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Revascularization
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Quality of Care
 •Evidence-Based Medicine
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •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?

The Disconnect Between Practice Guidelines and Clinical Practice—Stressed Out

George A. Diamond, MD; Sanjay Kaul, MD

JAMA. 2008;300(15):1817-1819.

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

Despite increasing evidence supporting plaque instability as the proximate cause of atherosclerotic events,1-2 treatment strategies continue to focus on the anatomic stenosis.3 This preoccupation with coronary luminology causes clinicians to perform stress tests and angiograms to identify flow-limiting lesions, even among asymptomatic patients, and to mitigate the effects of these lesions by direct mechanical or surgical intervention. As a result, clinical practice guidelines currently recommend revascularization when stress testing reveals demonstrable myocardial ischemia despite optimal medical management.3-4

Unfortunately, the guidelines are not as clear as they might be on this matter. For example, one guideline reads as follows3:

[Percutaneous coronary intervention] may be considered in patients with [Canadian Cardiovascular Society] class III angina and no evidence of ischemia on noninvasive testing or who are undergoing medical therapy and have 2- or 3-vessel [coronary artery disease] with significant proximal [left anterior descending coronary . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: Division of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.



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 ARTICLE

Frequency of Stress Testing to Document Ischemia Prior to Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Grace A. Lin, R. Adams Dudley, F. L. Lucas, David J. Malenka, Eric Vittinghoff, and Rita F. Redberg
JAMA. 2008;300(15):1765-1773.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Stress Testing Prior to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
JWatch General 2008;2008:2-2.
FULL TEXT  

Stress Testing Before Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Journal Watch Cardiology 2008;2008:2-2.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.