Key result
Percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary artery disease may not be supported by cost-effectiveness based on documented outcomes.
Why the study?
Does Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) improve outcomes or cost-effectiveness in patients with symptomatic stable Coronary Artery Disease (CAD)?
Does Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) improve outcomes or cost-effectiveness in patients with symptomatic stable Coronary Artery Disease (CAD)?
The abstract highlights that despite patient and physician temptation, PCI for angina relief in stable CAD may not be supported by cost-effectiveness and documented outcomes.
Most patients with symptomatic Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) are seeking quick relief for their angina by requesting Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) that proved to be effective in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS), however, their request for PCI may be appropriately denied in stable CAD. Temptations for complete revascularization in CAD make certain valid target for patients as well as their treating physicians; nonetheless, cost effectiveness based on documented outcomes may not support interventional strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohamed Z Khalil (2018) conducted an editorial in Stable Coronary Artery Disease. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) was evaluated. Percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary artery disease may not be supported by cost-effectiveness based on documented outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: