Why the study?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention with optimal risk factor management improve early and late outcomes compared to medical therapy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention with optimal risk factor management improve early and late outcomes compared to medical therapy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review highlights the importance of preoperative risk factor management and modern intravascular techniques to improve the efficacy and outcomes of elective PCI in stable ischemic heart disease.
The article is a topical literature review of the place of percutaneous coronary interventions in the structure of elective revascularisation procedures, preoperative preparation of patients with stable ischaemic heart disease before percutaneous coronary intervention, the prospects of the technique, taking into account the latest advances in intervention cardiology (intravascular methods for assessing the hemodynamic significance of stenosis, drug eluting stents). Modern data of the early and long-term results of percutaneous coronary intervention are presented, the predictable potentially modifiable risks of adverse events are described, and ways to correct them are discussed. The results of randomised studies comparing the effectiveness of different approaches for managing patients with stable coronary heart disease (medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention) are presented, and prospects for using new drugs to improve the early and late outcomes of endovascular revascularisation are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Кочергина et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: