The treatment-risk paradox

Do high-risk patients get the treatment they deserve?

Eddie D. Davenport, Michael Almaleh, Scott Moore, Charles Campbell

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Current guidelines for the treatment of ACS call for early risk stratification followed by an aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic approach for patients at high risk of adverse events. These guidelines are based on randomized clinical trials demonstrating that therapies such as low-molecular-weight heparins, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and an early invasive reperfusion strategy are of particular benefit to high-risk patients. Among lower-risk patients, the risks associated with these therapies may outweigh the potential benefits. Recently, analyses from large ACS registries have suggested that clinicians are more likely to offer these therapies to low-risk patients than to those at high risk. This observation has been termed the "treatment-risk paradox". In this review, data in support of this finding are discussed, as are the potential etiologies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)43-49
Number of pages7
JournalAcute Coronary Syndromes
Volume9
Issue number2
StatePublished - Dec 1 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Therapeutics
Guidelines
Platelet Glycoprotein GPIIb-IIIa Complex
Low Molecular Weight Heparin
Reperfusion
Registries
Randomized Controlled Trials

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

The treatment-risk paradox : Do high-risk patients get the treatment they deserve? / Davenport, Eddie D.; Almaleh, Michael; Moore, Scott; Campbell, Charles.

In: Acute Coronary Syndromes, Vol. 9, No. 2, 01.12.2008, p. 43-49.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Davenport, Eddie D. ; Almaleh, Michael ; Moore, Scott ; Campbell, Charles. / The treatment-risk paradox : Do high-risk patients get the treatment they deserve?. In: Acute Coronary Syndromes. 2008 ; Vol. 9, No. 2. pp. 43-49.
@article{fa01d14cb7414fa0a4499c1798e56610,
title = "The treatment-risk paradox: Do high-risk patients get the treatment they deserve?",
abstract = "Current guidelines for the treatment of ACS call for early risk stratification followed by an aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic approach for patients at high risk of adverse events. These guidelines are based on randomized clinical trials demonstrating that therapies such as low-molecular-weight heparins, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and an early invasive reperfusion strategy are of particular benefit to high-risk patients. Among lower-risk patients, the risks associated with these therapies may outweigh the potential benefits. Recently, analyses from large ACS registries have suggested that clinicians are more likely to offer these therapies to low-risk patients than to those at high risk. This observation has been termed the {"}treatment-risk paradox{"}. In this review, data in support of this finding are discussed, as are the potential etiologies.",
author = "Davenport, {Eddie D.} and Michael Almaleh and Scott Moore and Charles Campbell",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "43--49",
journal = "Acute Coronary Syndromes",
issn = "1369-5312",
publisher = "Remedica Medical Education and Publishing Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The treatment-risk paradox

T2 - Do high-risk patients get the treatment they deserve?

AU - Davenport, Eddie D.

AU - Almaleh, Michael

AU - Moore, Scott

AU - Campbell, Charles

PY - 2008/12/1

Y1 - 2008/12/1

N2 - Current guidelines for the treatment of ACS call for early risk stratification followed by an aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic approach for patients at high risk of adverse events. These guidelines are based on randomized clinical trials demonstrating that therapies such as low-molecular-weight heparins, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and an early invasive reperfusion strategy are of particular benefit to high-risk patients. Among lower-risk patients, the risks associated with these therapies may outweigh the potential benefits. Recently, analyses from large ACS registries have suggested that clinicians are more likely to offer these therapies to low-risk patients than to those at high risk. This observation has been termed the "treatment-risk paradox". In this review, data in support of this finding are discussed, as are the potential etiologies.

AB - Current guidelines for the treatment of ACS call for early risk stratification followed by an aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic approach for patients at high risk of adverse events. These guidelines are based on randomized clinical trials demonstrating that therapies such as low-molecular-weight heparins, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and an early invasive reperfusion strategy are of particular benefit to high-risk patients. Among lower-risk patients, the risks associated with these therapies may outweigh the potential benefits. Recently, analyses from large ACS registries have suggested that clinicians are more likely to offer these therapies to low-risk patients than to those at high risk. This observation has been termed the "treatment-risk paradox". In this review, data in support of this finding are discussed, as are the potential etiologies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955526329&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955526329&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

VL - 9

SP - 43

EP - 49

JO - Acute Coronary Syndromes

JF - Acute Coronary Syndromes

SN - 1369-5312

IS - 2

ER -