Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Evaluating risks and benefits in coronary revascularisation - a very imperfect art?
  1. Mark A de Belder (mark.debelder{at}stees.nhs.uk)
  1. The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom
    1. Leslie Hamilton (leslie.hamilton{at}nuth.nhs.uk)
    1. Freeman Hospital, United Kingdom

      Abstract

      There have been major changes in the delivery of services to patients with coronary disease over the last two decades. These include primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and an early invasive strategy for those with non-STEMI acute coronary syndromes (ACS). In these settings patients undergo angiography with a view to immediate angioplasty (so-called “follow-on” or “ad-hoc” angioplasty) or early coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Chest pain clinics identify patients who need early angiography and these and other elective patients are frequently listed for a potential follow-on procedure. These changes have made revascularisation units more efficient, with greater patient throughput and reduced hospital bed-days. In the UK, they have played a major part in significantly reducing waiting times for procedures.

      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.

      Linked Articles