Why the study?
Should stable patients with persistent occlusion of the infarct artery late after myocardial infarction undergo percutaneous coronary intervention or receive optimal medical treatment alone?
Should stable patients with persistent occlusion of the infarct artery late after myocardial infarction undergo percutaneous coronary intervention or receive optimal medical treatment alone?
Based on the Occluded Artery Trial, routine PCI is not recommended for stable patients with late persistent occlusion of the infarct artery.
As of April 2007 the early open artery hypothesis is alive and well, but the late open artery hypothesis is adrift. For the foreseeable future, stable patients with persistent occlusion of the infarct artery late after myocardial infarction, and without severe ischaemia or uncontrollable angina, should be managed initially with optimal medical treatment alone, and not with percutaneous coronary intervention. Efforts should focus on establishing reperfusion earlier, including reducing the time to patient presentation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lamas et al. (2007) conducted an editorial in Myocardial infarction. Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. Optimal medical treatment alone was evaluated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: