Coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction

David W. Bates, Elizabeth Miller, Steven J. Bernstein, Paul Hauptman, Lucian L. Leape

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the data that support the use of coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction, that identify the risks of these procedures, and that analyze their use and costs. Data Sources: English-language articles published between 1970 and June 1995 identified through a search of the MEDLINE database. Study Selection: Studies that contained information about benefits, risks, use, and costs of coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction. Data Extraction: Descriptive and analytic data from each study were collected. Data Synthesis: The outcome for patients who have complications of myocardial infarction (such as shock) is poor. Such patients usually undergo angiography, although the evidence that supports this practice is weak. Preliminary data suggest that patients who immediately have angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction have better outcomes than do patients who receive thrombolytic therapy with angioplasty only for specific indications in experienced centers. After the acute phase of myocardial infarction, patients who have noninvasive evidence of persistent or recurrent ischemia are believed to benefit from angiography. In the remaining patients, however, angiography after myocardial infarction has not been shown to be beneficial. Coronary angiography is done in 30% to 81% of patients after acute myocardial infarction in different settings and regions; for many of these patients, the benefit is questionable. Better outcomes are not always associated with more frequent use of the procedure. In the United States, catheterizations after myocardial infarction cost approximately $1 billion per year. Conclusions: Although many patients benefit from angiography and angioplasty after myocardial infarction, others probably do not. Substantial resources are at stake.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)539-550
Number of pages12
JournalAnnals of internal medicine
Volume126
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1997

Fingerprint

Coronary Angiography
Angioplasty
Myocardial Infarction
Angiography
Costs and Cost Analysis
Information Storage and Retrieval
Thrombolytic Therapy
MEDLINE
Catheterization
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Shock
Language
Ischemia
Databases

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction. / Bates, David W.; Miller, Elizabeth; Bernstein, Steven J.; Hauptman, Paul; Leape, Lucian L.

In: Annals of internal medicine, Vol. 126, No. 7, 01.01.1997, p. 539-550.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Bates, David W. ; Miller, Elizabeth ; Bernstein, Steven J. ; Hauptman, Paul ; Leape, Lucian L. / Coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction. In: Annals of internal medicine. 1997 ; Vol. 126, No. 7. pp. 539-550.
@article{d9387ace4dc543bdb2eba266325ca25f,
title = "Coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess the data that support the use of coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction, that identify the risks of these procedures, and that analyze their use and costs. Data Sources: English-language articles published between 1970 and June 1995 identified through a search of the MEDLINE database. Study Selection: Studies that contained information about benefits, risks, use, and costs of coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction. Data Extraction: Descriptive and analytic data from each study were collected. Data Synthesis: The outcome for patients who have complications of myocardial infarction (such as shock) is poor. Such patients usually undergo angiography, although the evidence that supports this practice is weak. Preliminary data suggest that patients who immediately have angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction have better outcomes than do patients who receive thrombolytic therapy with angioplasty only for specific indications in experienced centers. After the acute phase of myocardial infarction, patients who have noninvasive evidence of persistent or recurrent ischemia are believed to benefit from angiography. In the remaining patients, however, angiography after myocardial infarction has not been shown to be beneficial. Coronary angiography is done in 30{\%} to 81{\%} of patients after acute myocardial infarction in different settings and regions; for many of these patients, the benefit is questionable. Better outcomes are not always associated with more frequent use of the procedure. In the United States, catheterizations after myocardial infarction cost approximately $1 billion per year. Conclusions: Although many patients benefit from angiography and angioplasty after myocardial infarction, others probably do not. Substantial resources are at stake.",
author = "Bates, {David W.} and Elizabeth Miller and Bernstein, {Steven J.} and Paul Hauptman and Leape, {Lucian L.}",
year = "1997",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.7326/0003-4819-126-7-199704010-00007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "126",
pages = "539--550",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction

AU - Bates, David W.

AU - Miller, Elizabeth

AU - Bernstein, Steven J.

AU - Hauptman, Paul

AU - Leape, Lucian L.

PY - 1997/1/1

Y1 - 1997/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To assess the data that support the use of coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction, that identify the risks of these procedures, and that analyze their use and costs. Data Sources: English-language articles published between 1970 and June 1995 identified through a search of the MEDLINE database. Study Selection: Studies that contained information about benefits, risks, use, and costs of coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction. Data Extraction: Descriptive and analytic data from each study were collected. Data Synthesis: The outcome for patients who have complications of myocardial infarction (such as shock) is poor. Such patients usually undergo angiography, although the evidence that supports this practice is weak. Preliminary data suggest that patients who immediately have angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction have better outcomes than do patients who receive thrombolytic therapy with angioplasty only for specific indications in experienced centers. After the acute phase of myocardial infarction, patients who have noninvasive evidence of persistent or recurrent ischemia are believed to benefit from angiography. In the remaining patients, however, angiography after myocardial infarction has not been shown to be beneficial. Coronary angiography is done in 30% to 81% of patients after acute myocardial infarction in different settings and regions; for many of these patients, the benefit is questionable. Better outcomes are not always associated with more frequent use of the procedure. In the United States, catheterizations after myocardial infarction cost approximately $1 billion per year. Conclusions: Although many patients benefit from angiography and angioplasty after myocardial infarction, others probably do not. Substantial resources are at stake.

AB - Purpose: To assess the data that support the use of coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction, that identify the risks of these procedures, and that analyze their use and costs. Data Sources: English-language articles published between 1970 and June 1995 identified through a search of the MEDLINE database. Study Selection: Studies that contained information about benefits, risks, use, and costs of coronary angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction. Data Extraction: Descriptive and analytic data from each study were collected. Data Synthesis: The outcome for patients who have complications of myocardial infarction (such as shock) is poor. Such patients usually undergo angiography, although the evidence that supports this practice is weak. Preliminary data suggest that patients who immediately have angiography and angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction have better outcomes than do patients who receive thrombolytic therapy with angioplasty only for specific indications in experienced centers. After the acute phase of myocardial infarction, patients who have noninvasive evidence of persistent or recurrent ischemia are believed to benefit from angiography. In the remaining patients, however, angiography after myocardial infarction has not been shown to be beneficial. Coronary angiography is done in 30% to 81% of patients after acute myocardial infarction in different settings and regions; for many of these patients, the benefit is questionable. Better outcomes are not always associated with more frequent use of the procedure. In the United States, catheterizations after myocardial infarction cost approximately $1 billion per year. Conclusions: Although many patients benefit from angiography and angioplasty after myocardial infarction, others probably do not. Substantial resources are at stake.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030989070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030989070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7326/0003-4819-126-7-199704010-00007

DO - 10.7326/0003-4819-126-7-199704010-00007

M3 - Review article

C2 - 9092320

AN - SCOPUS:0030989070

VL - 126

SP - 539

EP - 550

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 7

ER -