[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.5.239. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Editorial
August 13/27, 2007

Behavioral Factors, Bias, and Practice Guidelines in the Decision to Use Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(15):1573-1575. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.15.1573

In September of 2007, it will be exactly 30 years since the first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed by Andreas Gruntzig. In the initial report of his first 5 cases,1 Gruntzig concluded that the technique, “if it proves successful in long-term follow-up studies, may widen the indications for coronary angiography and provide another treatment for patients with angina pectoris.” Despite the exponential growth in the number of PCI procedures during the next 3 decades, it took 15 years to complete the first of those long-term follow-up studies2 and an additional 15 years to complete the most current one.3 As of today, while available data have supported the superiority of PCI when compared with medical therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes, its effectiveness in improving outcomes beyond a relief of angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) remains unproven. In addition, recent data have questioned its effectiveness in reducing adverse events in patients with stable CAD who are undergoing noncardiac surgery.4

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×