We only have this paper's title and publication details.
Read it at the sourceAnswers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“The timing of invasive therapy in medium- and high-risk patients. The role of triple- vs. dual-antiplatelet therapy in patients at medium and high risk. The role of invasive therapy in patients with chronic kidney disease. The importance of participating in quality improvement processes. The role of prasugrel in non–ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.”
“There have been a lot of new trials, new drugs, new anticoagulants, and new issues, so there are a moderate number of changes. I don't think there are a lot of things that are completely reversed, but there's certainly been an evolution and fine-tuning of the 2002 guidelines.”
“When it comes to the issue of invasive vs conservative strategies, there is evidence that goes both ways, depending on which study you choose to look at.... Following that evidence, there are differences in clinician opinion as to what the right strategy would be, and I think in part the guidelines reflect that.”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wright et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: