Podder Vivek, Price Amy, Sivapuram Madhava Sai, Biswas Rakesh
Department of Medicine, Tairunnessa Memorial Medical College and Hospital, Gazipur, Bangladesh.
Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
BMJ Case Rep. 2019 Mar 31;12(3):e227118. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2018-227118.
Coronary artery disease managed by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been noted for profit-driven overuse medicine. Concerns mount over inappropriate use of PCI for patients in India. We describe the case of a 55-year-old Indian man who presented for a second opinion following an urgent recommendation for PCI by two cardiologists following a recent acute myocardial infarction even though the patient was symptom-free and out of the window period for primary PCI. The proposed intervention placed the patient at financial risk for insolvency. This case report highlights the challenges and consequences of inappropriate overuse of PCI. Also, we outline the current lack of shared decision-making among patients and physicians for the PCI procedure. The challenges, inherent in the assumptions that overuse of PCI is evidence-based, are discussed including recommendations for the practice of evidence based medicine for this intervention.
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)管理的冠状动脉疾病因逐利性过度医疗而受到关注。印度对于患者不恰当使用PCI的担忧日益增加。我们描述了一名55岁印度男性的病例,该患者近期发生急性心肌梗死后,两名心脏病专家紧急建议进行PCI,尽管患者无症状且已过直接PCI的窗口期,但他前来寻求第二种意见。所提议的干预措施使患者面临财务破产风险。本病例报告强调了不恰当过度使用PCI的挑战和后果。此外,我们概述了目前患者和医生在PCI手术中缺乏共同决策的情况。讨论了PCI过度使用基于证据这一假设中固有的挑战,包括针对该干预措施循证医学实践的建议。