Why the study?
Does routine use of anticoagulants compared to selective use improve death and thromboembolic complication rates in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Does routine use of anticoagulants compared to selective use improve death and thromboembolic complication rates in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This text discusses the debate between routine versus selective use of anticoagulants in acute myocardial infarction, particularly questioning the benefit in clinically mild cases.
Although anticoagulant therapy has become an accepted form of treatment for acute myocardial infarction, there is still much disagreement, even among authorities, regarding the indications for its use. Wright¹has advanced persuasive arguments in defense of the recommendation that anticoagulants be employed in all cases in which no contraindications exist,2abut there is, nevertheless, a growing weight of opinion in favor of withholding these agents from patients who have had a clinically mild infarction. The statistical data presented by the committee on anticoagulants of the American Heart Association,²as well as that recorded from numerous other sources, indicate that anticoagulant drugs exert a markedly favorable influence on both the death rate and the thromboembolic complication rate in unselected groups. In spite of this convincing evidence, none of these studies have actually shown that clinically mild or low risk groups share in the over-all benefit derived from this
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Henry I. Russek (1954) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: