Is noninvasive risk stratification sufficient, or should all patients undergo cardiac catheterization and angiography after a myocardial infarction?
From the foregoing discussion, it becomes apparent that although noninvasive risk stratification is a reasonable approach to assessment of patients following an uncomplicated myocardial infarction, the performance of early cardiac catheterization and angiography on nearly all such patients is not unreasonable and may in fact be the most practical approach. The basis for this rationalization may be summarized as follows: 1. Many subgroups will need early catheterization anyway a. Myocardial infarction complicated by recurrent ischemia, heart failure, or complex ventricular arrhythmias b. Patients receiving thrombolytic treatment c. "Young" patients (less than 50 years old?) d. "Older" patients (over ages 65 to 70?) in otherwise good medical condition e. Patients unable to exercise f. Patients with abnormal or inconclusive noninvasive test results (approximately 70 percent of patients) 2. Cardiac catheterization and angiography as a single test provides the two most powerful prognostic variables following myocardial infarction, namely, the extent of coronary artery disease and residual left ventricular function. This knowledge is reassuring to both physician and patient and allows for planning of optimal long-term management. 3. Certain limitations exist in noninvasive risk assessment strategies. 4. This approach need not be significantly more costly, if all tests are used wisely. The major risk inherent in the definition of the extent of coronary artery disease in all survivors of acute myocardial infarction might be the performance of unnecessary revascularization procedures (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery). The burden rests with the individual clinician to (1) collect all useful and necessary data; (2) assess reliability and accuracy of various tests available at one's own institution; (3) avoid performing unnecessary and repetitive tests; (4) interpret the data in the proper context; and (5) counsel patients appropriately, correctly, and judiciously about their prognosis and therapeutic options. In this manner, all patients who might benefit appropriately from revascularization can be discovered early and offered this therapeutic option. Other patients can also be managed more appropriately; for example, those who are truly at very low risk (normal left ventricular function and either normal coronary arteries or "mild" coronary artery disease). However, it is most important to avoid unnecessary revascularization procedures. Although this discussion has focused on noninvasive and invasive testing following myocardial infarction, it is necessary to emphasize that comprehensive management of coronary artery disease and its complications should not be neglected in these patients; for example, control or amelioration of risk factors for coronary artery disease is mandatory in all these patients, and in their families as well.
D L
DL
Kulick
S H
SH
Rahimtoola
D000368:Aged; D006328:Cardiac Catheterization / Q000191:economics; D017023:Coronary Angiography; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D009203:Myocardial Infarction / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000401:mortality / Q000503:physiopathology; D011379:Prognosis; D012307:Risk Factors