Why the study?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) provide benefit compared to medical therapy alone in patients undergoing angiography 3 to 28 days after acute myocardial infarction with poor or absent flow in a major infarct-related artery?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) provide benefit compared to medical therapy alone in patients undergoing angiography 3 to 28 days after acute myocardial infarction with poor or absent flow in a major infarct-related artery?
Routine PCI for a totally occluded infarct-related artery 3 to 28 days after myocardial infarction provides no benefit over medical therapy alone.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lowe et al. (2008) conducted an editorial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. medical therapy alone was evaluated on sustained patency of the infarct-related artery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: