经皮冠状动脉血运重建：它是否物有所值？
Percutaneous coronary revascularisation: is it ever worth what it costs?
作者信息
Mark Daniel B
出版信息
Heart. 2007 Oct;93(10):1161-3. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2007.130401.
Abstract
“How could percutaneous coronary intervention without the risks and morbidities of heart surgery not be of benefit to patients? Hard experience teaches that such attractive “pathophysiological” simplifications are unreliable guides to practice and paradoxically may lead to worse rather than better treatment decisions”
摘要
没有心脏手术风险和并发症的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗怎么可能对患者没有益处呢？惨痛的经验告诉我们，这种诱人的“病理生理”简化并不是可靠的实践指南，而且自相矛盾的是，可能会导致更糟糕而非更好的治疗决策。
相似文献
1
Percutaneous coronary revascularisation: is it ever worth what it costs?经皮冠状动脉血运重建：它是否物有所值？
Heart. 2007 Oct;93(10):1161-3. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2007.130401.
2
Revascularization trumps medicine for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic angina (or does it?).对于2型糖尿病合并慢性心绞痛患者，血管重建术优于药物治疗（真的如此吗？）
Circulation. 2011 Apr 12;123(14):1489-91. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.022780. Epub 2011 Mar 28.
3
Cost effectiveness of clinically appropriate decisions on alternative treatments for angina pectoris: prospective observational study.关于心绞痛替代治疗临床适宜决策的成本效益：前瞻性观察性研究
BMJ. 2007 Mar 24;334(7594):624. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39129.442164.55. Epub 2007 Mar 5.
4
[Economic evaluation of different treatment strategies in patients with stable angina pectoris or asymptomatic myocardial ischemia on basis of results from the Asymptomatic-Cardiac-Ischemia Pilot study (ACIP)].基于无症状性心肌缺血初步研究（ACIP）结果对稳定型心绞痛或无症状性心肌缺血患者不同治疗策略的经济学评估
Med Klin (Munich). 2000 Jan 15;95(1):1-13.
5
Percutaneous coronary intervention in chronic stable angina.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗慢性稳定性心绞痛。
Am J Med Sci. 2010 Jun;339(6):568-72. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181d673d7.
6
Transmyocardial laser revascularisation.经心肌激光血运重建术
Lancet. 1999 May 15;353(9165):1704; author reply 1706-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00087-2.
7
Effect of insurance type on adverse cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention.保险类型对经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后不良心脏事件的影响。
Am J Cardiol. 2011 Mar 1;107(5):675-80. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.10.041. Epub 2010 Dec 22.
8
9
Cost-effectiveness of everolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization (from the SPIRIT-IV Trial).经皮冠状动脉血运重建术患者中依维莫司洗脱支架与紫杉醇洗脱支架的成本效益比较（来自 SPIRIT-IV 试验）。
Am J Cardiol. 2012 Sep 15;110(6):765-70. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.05.006. Epub 2012 May 30.
10
Trial-based cost-utility comparison of percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation and continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris.
Eur J Health Econ. 2005 Dec;6(4):288-97. doi: 10.1007/s10198-005-0310-5.
本文引用的文献
1
Is primary angioplasty cost effective in the UK? Results of a comprehensive decision analysis.在英国，直接冠状动脉介入治疗是否具有成本效益？一项全面决策分析的结果
Heart. 2007 Oct;93(10):1238-43. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2006.111401. Epub 2007 Aug 23.
2
Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease.稳定型冠心病接受或不接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的优化药物治疗
N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12;356(15):1503-16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa070829. Epub 2007 Mar 26.
3
Cost effectiveness of clinically appropriate decisions on alternative treatments for angina pectoris: prospective observational study.关于心绞痛替代治疗临床适宜决策的成本效益：前瞻性观察性研究
BMJ. 2007 Mar 24;334(7594):624. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39129.442164.55. Epub 2007 Mar 5.
4
Heart disease and stroke statistics--2007 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.《2007年心脏病和中风统计数据更新：美国心脏协会统计委员会及中风统计小组委员会报告》
Circulation. 2007 Feb 6;115(5):e69-171. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.179918. Epub 2006 Dec 28.
5
Coronary intervention for persistent occlusion after myocardial infarction.心肌梗死后持续性闭塞的冠状动脉介入治疗。
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 7;355(23):2395-407. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa066139. Epub 2006 Nov 14.
6
Long-term outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs prehospital and in-hospital thrombolysis for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者接受直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与院前及院内溶栓治疗的长期预后
JAMA. 2006 Oct 11;296(14):1749-56. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.14.1749.
7
Benefit of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials.早期侵入性治疗在急性冠状动脉综合征中的益处：当代随机临床试验的荟萃分析。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Oct 3;48(7):1319-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.06.050. Epub 2006 Sep 12.
8
Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients.时间重要吗？一项对比较急性心肌梗死患者直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗和院内溶栓治疗的随机临床试验的汇总分析。
Eur Heart J. 2006 Apr;27(7):779-88. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi810. Epub 2006 Mar 2.
9
Drug eluting stents: an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.药物洗脱支架：随机对照试验的最新荟萃分析
Heart. 2006 May;92(5):641-9. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2005.061622. Epub 2005 Oct 10.
10
Early invasive versus selectively invasive management for acute coronary syndromes.急性冠状动脉综合征的早期侵入性治疗与选择性侵入性治疗
N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 15;353(11):1095-104. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa044259.
Zotero 插件