To the Editor: It seems that the perceived value of invasive therapy for different acute coronary syndromes varies according to how one chooses and values the various trials.1-3 The differing opinions may have been enriched had they not only considered short-term cardiovascular outcome but also weighed quantitatively — in absolute terms — the purported benefits (or lack thereof) of invasive therapy against the immediate complications and the long-term risks and burden of the combined aspirin and clopidogrel antiplatelet therapy usually necessary after stent placement. It may be that with all this information, patients also have a range of opinions regarding benefits and risks.4
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA.
- 1. Forge BH. The “Acute coronary syndromes: consensus recommendations for translating knowledge into action” position statement is based on a false premise. Med J Aust 2010; 192: 696-699. <MJA full text>
- 2. Brieger DB, Aroney CN, Chew DP, et al. Acute coronary syndromes: consensus recommendations for translating knowledge into action. Med J Aust 2010; 192: 700-701. <MJA full text>
- 3. Thompson PL. The invasive approach to acute coronary syndrome: true promise or false premise [editorial]. Med J Aust 2010; 192: 694-695. <MJA full text>
- 4. Fitzgerald SP, Phillipov G. Patient attitudes to commonly promoted medical interventions. Med J Aust 2000; 172: 9-12. <MJA full text>
- 5. Quanstrum HQ, Hayward RA. Lessons from the mammography wars. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1076-1079.