Key result
Aggressive invasive management and conservative pharmacologic methods for acute myocardial infarction show no clear advantage to either approach when effectively applied to appropriately selected patients.
Why the study?
Does aggressive invasive management reduce case fatality compared to conservative pharmacologic methods in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Does aggressive invasive management reduce case fatality compared to conservative pharmacologic methods in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Aggressive invasive management and conservative pharmacologic methods show no clear advantage over each other for acute myocardial infarction when appropriately applied.
Differences in the incidence, prevalence of and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) are observed between and within countries. These differences are believed to be related to differing levels of CHD risk factors and medical care. Medical care for acute myocardial infarction has changed significantly in the past decades, with the development of new methods for diagnosis and treatment. Although widely known, these technologies are not consistently applied for reasons of availability and cost, as well as local medical cultures and traditions. The outcomes of medical care for acute myocardial infarction are best measured by case fatality of those hospitalized. Since the early 1960s, case fatality has fallen to less than half that observed previously. This has occurred in the context of widespread use of coronary care unit monitoring, innovative pharmacologic agents and invasive reperfusion treatments. A common debate compares aggressive invasive management with more conservative pharmacologic methods. In this context, studies have produced mixed results with no clear advantage to one approach when both methods are available and effectively applied to appropriately selected patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luepker et al. (1999) conducted a review in Acute Myocardial Infarction. Aggressive invasive management vs. Conservative pharmacologic methods was evaluated on Case fatality. Aggressive invasive management and conservative pharmacologic methods for acute myocardial infarction show no clear advantage to either approach when effectively applied to appropriately selected patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: