Why the study?
Does non-acute percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improve outcomes compared to medical therapy in patients with ischaemic heart disease?
Does non-acute percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improve outcomes compared to medical therapy in patients with ischaemic heart disease?
This is a protocol for a systematic review assessing the benefits and harms of non-acute PCI versus medical therapy in ischemic heart disease.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Protocol for PCI vs medical therapy review established; leaves open optimal strategy in ischaemic heart disease pending synthesis.
This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of non-acute percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus medical therapy in patients with ischaemic heart disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nielsen et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: