You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Correspondence
The Authors' reply
  1. Pascal Meier1,
  2. Stephan Windecker2,
  3. Alexandra J Lansky3
  1. 1The Heart Hospital, University College London Hospitals, Cardiology, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
  3. 3Yale Medical School, Division of Cardiology, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Pascal Meier, Yale-UCL Cardiovascular Research Program, University College London Hospitals UCLH, The Heart Hospital, 16–18 Westmoreland Street, London W1G 8PH, UK; pascalmeier74{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2012-301936

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The Authors' reply: We thank Ratib et al for their interest in our editorial1 which discussed their paper.2 Radial access has been in use for decades, but has only recently gained wider acceptance in some countries. As with every change in medicine, we must ensure that it is driven by sound evidence rather than an ‘en vogue’ trend. The authors are to be congratulated for adding to the body of evidence supporting the radial approach in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In general, we agree with the author's conclusions. The aim of our editorial was to underline the importance of their paper, and at the same time, consider limitations of the different trials and their pooled results.

    We agree with the authors' first comment that, in general, the UK, as well as other countries, have led a trend with rapid adoption of the radial access …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.