This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mark, D. B. Articles by Lee, T. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mark, D. B. Articles by Lee, T. H.

(Circulation. 2002;105:666.)
© 2002 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorials

Conservative Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Cheaper and Better for You?

Daniel B. Mark, MD, MPH; Thomas H. Lee, MD, MSc

From the Outcomes Research and Assessment Group (D.B.M.), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; and Partners Community Healthcare Inc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School (T.H.L.), Boston, Mass.

Correspondence to Daniel B. Mark, MD, MPH, Professor of Medicine, Duke Clinical Research Institute, 2400 Pratt Ave, Room 0311, Durham, NC 27705; PO Box 17969, Durham, NC 27715. E-mail daniel.mark@duke.edu

Key Words: Editorials • coronary disease • outcomes • cost-effectiveness

Over the last decade, 2 basic approaches have evolved to guide the use of cardiac catheterization and coronary revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Both use risk stratification tools in an attempt to achieve the best outcome for patients. Where they differ is in the most efficient means to the goal. The "conservative" approach encompasses strategies built around the use of serial clinical evaluations and noninvasive stress tests to identify those high-risk patients who need referral to diagnostic catheterization. Several variants have been developed with associated early catheterization rates ranging from 10% (FRISC-II) to as high as 57% (TIMI-IIIB).^1,2 The proponents of this approach cite the advantages of not exposing lower-risk patients to potential complications of invasive diagnostic procedures or to revascularization procedures without prognostic or symptomatic benefit (the so-called "oculorevascularization reflex"). Because they use fewer expensive procedures, conservative approaches have also been regarded as more efficient economically, ie, lower cost. The "aggressive" approach is based on the belief that noninvasive methods are not sufficiently accurate to identify all patients with prognostically significant coronary lesions who require revascularization. Under the concept of "a stitch in time saves nine," proponents of aggressive strategies have also argued that these may be more economically efficient due both to an efficient early risk stratification process that minimizes expensive hospital days occupied with "watchful waiting" and to a reduction in subsequent hospitalizations and procedures resulting from reactivated unrevascularized disease. Aggressive strategies have typically used diagnostic cardiac catheterization in over 90% of ACS patients, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J E Udelson and E J Flint Radionuclide imaging in risk assessment after acute coronary syndromes Heart, August 1, 2004; 90(suppl_5): v16 - v25. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. M. Mahoney, C. T. Jurkovitz, H. Chu, E. R. Becker, S. Culler, A. S. Kosinski, D. H. Robertson, C. Alexander, S. Nag, J. R. Cook, et al. Cost and Cost-effectiveness of an Early Invasive vs Conservative Strategy for the Treatment of Unstable Angina and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction JAMA, October 16, 2002; 288(15): 1851 - 1858. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Cost-Effective Management of Non-Q-Wave MI Journal Watch (General), March 26, 2002; 2002(326): 2 - 2. [Full Text]