doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000030416.80014.F4
(Circulation. 2002;106:1588.)
© 2002 American Heart Association, Inc.
Editorial |
Evidence-Based Risk Stratification to Target Therapies in Acute Coronary Syndromes
From the TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Correspondence to Christopher Cannon, MD, TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail cpcannon{at}partners.org
Key Words: Editorials • angina • myocardial infarction • catheterization • anticoagulants
With the ever-increasing number of new treatments for the wide spectrum of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), risk stratification has become the centerpiece of initial evaluation for these patients.1 The overriding principle is to target more aggressive antithrombotic and interventional therapies in patients at higher risk.1,2
See p 1622
The approach to risk stratification has evolved during the past 2 decades from a practice that once involved an evaluation for residual ischemia and for left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction (MI). However, risk stratification has now evolved more to include assessment of the risk of future cardiac events, which can be predicted on the basis of clinical features at the time of the initial assessment in the emergency department. This change in timing parallels the change in nomenclature of ACS from Q-wave/non–Q wave MI to ST-elevation MI (STEMI) versus non-STEMI, a change that was made necessary by the need to make immediate treatment decisions about reperfusion therapy for those with ST elevation (and not for those without ST elevation).2 Similarly, risk stratification is now performed immediately (not days later) to assist in decisions on appropriate initial therapy and triage.
This notion of immediate risk assessment was first proposed in the 1994 unstable angina guidelines,3 and is now strongly evidence based, with numerous studies supporting the need to target the newer antithrombotic and interventional therapies to higher-risk ACS patients.4–18 Thus, risk stratification is key to the initial evaluation of patients with ACS because physicians will treat patients differently on the basis of their risk.
One of the first studies that reported a differential effect of a new intervention based on patient risk with unstable angina or non-ST elevation MI (UA/NSTEMI) was a study by Lindahl and colleagues4 that showed that the benefit of low-molecular-weight heparin versus placebo was seen only in patients who had an elevated troponin. This was followed by numerous studies that found benefits in patients with an elevated troponin %, new interventions such as enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin,6 IIb/IIIa inhibitors versus placebo,9–12 and an early invasive versus conservative strategy,14,15,18 whereas there were no differences seen with these interventions in patients with a negative troponin. The same has also been seen for ST-segment changes, with benefit of the newer therapies in those with ST-segment changes.5,15,18,19
Other factors found to be associated with increased risk include diabetes, with one recent study showing a mortality benefit of IIb/IIIa inhibition for diabetic patients with ACS versus no mortality difference in nondiabetics.20 Increasing age has also been universally shown to be a risk factor for higher rates of adverse outcomes, although a similar benefit has been seen in older versus younger patients for therapies in ACS.5,15,19 Prior aspirin use has also been noted to be associated with increased risk.7,21 Other factors noted in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) UA/NSTEMI guideline as high-risk features are prior revascularization and evidence of congestive heart failure.2 New markers have also been identified, including C-reactive protein and B-type natriuretic peptide, which are associated with increased mortality after ACS,22–24 but to date, no therapies have yet been identified that are of a particular benefit in ACS patients with an elevated versus normal C-reactive protein level or B-type natriuretic peptide.
The TIMI risk score is a means of integrating all of the clinical factors and markers to be a comprehensive risk stratification tool. Antman et al7 developed this score with the use of multivariate analysis in the TIMI 11B trial of patients with UA/NSTEMI. He used the end point of death and recurrent ischemic events, including MI and severe recurrent ischemia requiring urgent revascularization. He identified 7 independent risk factors that had approximately equal weight in this model and, thus, were given equal weight in the TIMI risk score. As the TIMI risk score increased, the risk of all events increased.7
The most intriguing observation was that the relative benefit of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin was also significantly greater in higher-risk patients, which was true in TIMI 11B and validated in the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non–Q-wave Coronary Events (ESSENCE) trial. Notably, this is an increase in both the relative benefit and the absolute benefit in terms of number of events prevented. The TIMI risk score has also been applied to evaluate the benefit of enoxaparin on long-term outcomes,8 of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition,13 and of an early invasive strategy15,17 in which there was, in each case, an increasing benefit in higher-risk patients. The TIMI risk score has also been validated in 2 different, unselected patient populations, including the TIMI-III Registry,25,26 and thus is valid in standard clinical practice, not just in the clinical trials from which it was derived. A program for Palm personal digital assistants of the TIMI risk score has been developed and is available (http://www.timi.org).27
The Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events (CURE) investigators have now applied the TIMI risk score to evaluate the newest of the beneficial treatments in UA/NSTEMI, clopidogrel.28 They validated the TIMI risk score and found that there was an increasing risk for their primary composite end point at 1 year, cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke, as well as each of the components individually.28
Two novel findings have emerged from this analysis. First, in contrast to the studies cited above, clopidogrel had the same relative benefit across all of the risk strata. The relative benefit was 
20% in the low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients.17 It is worth noting that because the baseline risk is higher, the absolute benefit (ie, the number of events prevented) is greatest in the highest-risk patients. The second novel finding of this analysis is that there was a statistically significant benefit of clopidogrel plus aspirin over aspirin alone in the low-risk patients. To date, this is the only intervention that has been demonstrated to be of significant incremental benefit over aspirin in patients with low-risk ACS. The take-home message from this analysis is that clopidogrel is beneficial across the full spectrum of UA/NSTEMI patients.
The striking difference of the benefit of clopidogrel (across the full risk spectrum) versus that of enoxaparin, IIb/IIIa inhibition, and early invasive strategy (with benefit present only in high-risk patients) speaks to a potential difference in the pharmacological effect of this agent. Clopidogrel inhibits platelet aggregation and decreases platelet activation by blocking the adenosine diphosphate (P2Y12) receptor.29 This decreases the number of "angry platelets" circulating in the patient’s bloodstream, as well as the overall propensity toward development of thrombosis and MI, which appears to occur in both low-risk and high-risk patients. In contrast, the acute treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and/or low-molecular-weight heparin is focused on treatment of the acute thrombus rather than long-term prevention of the prothrombotic milieu.
This finding in the CURE study parallels a recent analysis from the Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischaemic Events trial (CAPRIE), in which a risk score was developed to predict MI during long-term secondary prevention.30 With the use of this risk score, the same relative benefit in reducing myocardial infarction (19% overall) was seen in both the low-risk and high-risk patients.30 These data also parallel the univariate subgroup analyses seen with aspirin versus placebo, in which there is benefit again in both low-risk and high-risk patients,31 lending support to the notion that decreasing platelet activation is beneficial to both low-risk and high-risk patients.
The above findings have now been adopted in the new 2002 update of the ACC/AHA UA/NSTEMI guidelines, in which baseline therapy includes aspirin, clopidogrel, one of the heparins (with a class IIa recommendation for enoxaparin, especially in higher-risk patients) ß-blockers, and nitrates. Then, the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and an early invasive strategy are recommended only for high-risk patients (Figure). Thus, although first proposed in the guidelines in 1994,3 the notion of risk stratification to target therapy is now strongly evidence based.4–18
|
How does the TIMI risk score compare to other risk stratification scores? First, it was developed on the basis of the end points of death, MI, or severe recurrent ischemia. Other risk stratification scores that have focused on mortality, such as the TIMI STEMI risk score and the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue plasminogen activator for Occluded coronary arteries (GUSTO) score,32–34 have different risk factors. The factors that predict mortality are frequently related to left ventricular dysfunction (eg, higher Killip class, lower blood pressure). It is of great interest to note that the Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy trial (PURSUIT) risk score for mortality derived in patients with UA/NSTEMI35 is very similar to that of the TIMI STEMI (mortality) risk score.
Because the TIMI UA/NSTEMI risk score was developed to predict both death and nonfatal ischemia events, it has been found to be very useful in identifying the relative benefit of new interventions, most of which reduce nonfatal ischemic events. Thus, in terms of clinical utility, the TIMI risk score appears to be very useful as a simple bedside tool that will predict both the risk of death and recurrent ischemic events, but also the benefit of newer therapies, thereby allowing targeting of different therapies to appropriate patients.
Risk scores are also very useful in other areas of cardiology. For STEMI, before the TIMI STEMI risk scores,32,33 2 scores were developed that predicted the benefit of thrombolysis versus placebo36 and of tissue plasminogen activator versus streptokinase.34 For stable coronary disease, the Framingham risk score, recently adapted by the National Cholesterol Education Program Guidelines,37 has been found to be very useful in stratifying risk. In this setting, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein has also been a potent tool for risk stratification and has identified the differential benefit of both aspirin and statin therapy in patients with elevated C-reactive protein.38,39 Given the utility of using risk stratification to target therapy, it is hoped that this approach would be applied to other areas, such as percutaneous coronary intervention, and for predicting nonfatal events after STEMI, or for predicting major bleeding or the need for bypass surgery. One risk score has been developed for intracranial hemorrhage that may be helpful in choosing reperfusion strategies.40
Finally, the new frontier is in the development of new markers of cardiac risk, such as markers of inflammation or neurohormonal activation, and soon, genetic factors.41 These may be added to the TIMI (or other) risk scores to expand the overall risk assessment.24 This multimarker approach will help identify not only the differential pathophysiology of various types of patients, but also help determine more disease-specific therapies. We have thus entered the era of truly evidence-based risk stratification, which will allow us to target our newer therapies to the appropriate patients.
Footnotes
The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.
Dr Cannon has received research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial of pravastatin versus atorvastatin.
References
1. Cannon CP, Braunwald E. Unstable angina. In: Braunwald E, Zipes DP, Libby P, eds. Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine. 6th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: W.B. Saunders; 2001: 1232–1263.
2. Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, et al. ACC/AHA guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Unstable Angina). Available at: www.acc.org. Accessed March 15, 2002.
3. Braunwald E, Mark DB, Jones RH, et al. Unstable Angina: Diagnosis and Management. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 10. Rockville, Md: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services; 1994.
4. Lindahl B, Venge P, Wallentin L, and the FRISC study group. Troponin T identifies patients with unstable coronary artery disease who benefit from long-term antithrombotic protection. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997; 29: 43–48.[Abstract]
5. Cohen M, Antman EM, Gurfinkel EP, et al. Enoxaparin in unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: treatment benefits in prespecified subgroups. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2001; 12: 199–206.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Morrow DA, Antman EM, Tanasijevic M, et al. Cardiac troponin I for stratification of early outcomes and the efficacy of enoxaparin in unstable angina: a TIMI 11B substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 36: 1812–1817.
7. Antman EM, Cohen M, Bernink PJ, et al. The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. JAMA. 2000; 284: 835–842.
8. Sabatine MS, McCabe CH, Morrow DA, et al. Identification of patients at high risk for death and cardiac ischemic events after hospital discharge. Am Heart J. 2002; 143: 966–970.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Hamm CW, Heeschen C, Goldmann B, et al. Benefit of abciximab in patients with refractory unstable angina in relation to serum troponin T levels. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340: 1623–1629.
10. Heeschen C, Hamm CW, Goldmann B, et al. Troponin concentrations for stratification of patients with acute coronary syndromes in relation to therapeutic efficacy of tirofiban. Lancet. 1999; 354: 1757–1762.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Newby LK, Ohman EM, Christenson RH, et al. Benefit of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in patients with acute coronary syndromes and troponin t-positive status: the paragon-B troponin T substudy. Circulation. 2001; 103: 2891–2896.
12. Januzzi JL, Chai CU, Sabatine MS, et al. Elevation in serum troponin I predicts the benefit of tirofiban. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2001; 11: 211–215.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Morrow DA, Antman EM, Snapinn SM, et al. An integrated clinical approach to predicting the benefit of tirofiban in non-st elevation acute coronary syndromes: Application of the TIMI risk score for UA/NSTEMI in PRISM-PLUS. Eur Heart J. 2002; 23: 223–229.
14. Morrow DA, Cannon CP, Rifai N, et al. Ability of minor elevations of troponin I and T to predict benefit from an early invasive strategy in patients with unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: results from a randomized trial. JAMA. 2001; 286: 2405–2412.
15. Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA, et al. Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1879–1887.
16. Lindmark E, Diderholm E, Wallentin L, et al. Relationship between interleukin 6 and mortality in patients with unstable coronary artery disease: effects of an early invasive or noninvasive strategy. JAMA. 2001; 286: 2107–2113.
17. Samaha FF, Kimmel SE, Goyal A, et al. TIMI risk score predicts both 30 day and 1-year outcomes for high- and low-risk stratification of non-Q-wave infarction from the VANQWISH trial. Circulation. 2001; 104 (suppl II): II-697.Abstract.
18. Diderholm E, Andren B, Frostfeldt G, et al. The prognostic and therapeutic implications of increased troponin T levels and ST depression in unstable coronary artery disease: the FRISC II invasive troponin T electrocardiogram substudy. Am Heart J. 2002; 143: 760–767.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. The Platelet Receptor Inhibition for Ischemic Syndrome Management in Patients Limited by Unstable Signs, and Symptoms (PRISM-PLUS) Trial Investigators. Inhibition of the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor with tirofiban in unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1998; 338: 1488–1497.
20. Roffi M, Chew DP, Mukherjee D, et al. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors reduce mortality in diabetic patients with non–ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2001; 104: 2767–2771.
21. Alexander JH, Harrington RA, Tuttle RH, et al. Prior aspirin use predicts worse outcomes in patients with non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. PURSUIT Investigators. Platelet IIb/IIIa in Unstable angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy. Am J Cardiol. 1999; 83: 1147–1151.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Morrow DA, Rifai N, Antman EM, et al. C-reactive protein is a potent predictor of mortality independently and in combination with troponin T in acute coronary syndromes: a TIMI 11A substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 31: 1460–1465.
23. Lindahl B, Toss H, Siegbahn A, et al, for the FRISC Study Group. Fragmin during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease. Markers of myocardial damage and inflammation in relation to long-term mortality in unstable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343: 1139–1147.
24. Sabatine MS, Morrow DA, de Lemos JA, et al. Multimarker approach to risk stratification in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: simultaneous assessment of troponin I, C-reactive protein, and B-type natriuretic peptide. Circulation. 2002; 105: 1760–1763.
25. Scirica BM, Cannon CP, Antman EM, et al. Validation of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score for unstable angina pectoris and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the TIMI III Registry. Am J Cardiol. In press.
26. Bartholomew BA, Sheps DS, Monroe S, et al. A prospective validation of the TIMI Risk Score (TIMI-RS) for unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2001; 104 (suppl II): II-728.Abstract.
27. Cannon CP. Palm Pilot programs to improve the quality of care for patients with acute coronary syndromes. Crit Path Cardiol. 2002; 1: 113–115.
28. Budaj A, Yusuf S, Mehta SR, et al. The benefit of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation in various risk groups. Circulation. 2002; 106: 1622–1626.
29. Storey RF, Newby LJ, Heptinstall S. Effects of P2Y(1) and P2Y(12) receptor antagonists on platelet aggregation induced by different agonists in human whole blood. Platelets. 2001; 12: 443–447.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Cannon CP, on behalf of the CAPRIE Investigators. Effectiveness of clopidogrel versus aspirin in preventing acute myocardial infarction in patients with symptomatic atherothrombosis (CAPRIE trial). Am J Cardiol. In press.
31. Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high-risk patients. BMJ. 2002; 324: 71–86.
32. Morrow DA, Antman EM, Charlesworth A, et al. TIMI risk score for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A convenient, bedside, clinical score for risk assessment at presentation: An intravenous nPA for treatment of infarcting myocardium early II trial substudy. Circulation. 2000; 102: 2031–2037.
33. Morrow DA, Antman EM, Giugliano RP, et al. A simple risk index for rapid initial triage of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an InTIME II substudy. Lancet. 2001; 358: 1571–1575.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
34. Califf RM, Woodlief LH, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Selection of thrombolytic therapy for individual patients: development of a clinical model. Am Heart J. 1997; 133: 630–639.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Boersma E, Pieper KS, Steyerberg EW, et al. Predictors of outcome in patients with acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation. Results from an international trial of 9461 patients. Circulation. 2000; 101: 2557–2567.
36. Selker HP, Griffith JL, Beshansky JR, et al. Patient-specific predictions of outcomes in myocardial infarction for real-time emergency use: a thrombolytic predictive instrument. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127: 538–556.
37. Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001; 285: 2486–2497.
38. Ridker PM, Cushman M, Stampfer MJ, et al. Inflammation, aspirin, and the risk of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy men. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336: 973–979.
39. Ridker PM, Rifai N, Clearfield M, et al. Measurement of C-reactive protein for the targeting of statin therapy in the primary prevention of acute coronary events. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1959–1965.
40. Simoons ML, Maggioni AP, Knatterud G, et al. Individual risk assessment for intracranial hemorrhage during thrombolytic therapy. Lancet. 1993; 342: 1523–1528.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
41. Topol EJ, McCarthy J, Gabriel S, et al. Single nucleotide polymorphisms in multiple novel thrombospondin genes may be associated with familial premature myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2001; 104: 2641–2644.
Related Article:
Circulation 2002 106: 1622-1626.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  E. S. Brilakis, A. F. Hernandez, D. Dai, E. D. Peterson, S. Banerjee, G. C. Fonarow, C. P. Cannon, and D. L. Bhatt Quality of Care for Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients With Known Atherosclerotic Disease: Results From the Get With the Guidelines Program Circulation, August 18, 2009; 120(7): 560 - 567. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. A. Morrow, M. S. Sabatine, M.-L. Brennan, J. A. de Lemos, S. A. Murphy, C. T. Ruff, N. Rifai, C. P. Cannon, and S. L. Hazen Concurrent evaluation of novel cardiac biomarkers in acute coronary syndrome: myeloperoxidase and soluble CD40 ligand and the risk of recurrent ischaemic events in TACTICS-TIMI 18 Eur. Heart J., May 1, 2008; 29(9): 1096 - 1102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
NACB WRITING GROUP MEMBERS, D. A. Morrow, C. P. Cannon, R. L. Jesse, L. K. Newby, J. Ravkilde, A. B. Storrow, A. H.B. Wu, and R. H. Christenson National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines: Clinical Characteristics and Utilization of Biochemical Markers in Acute Coronary Syndromes Circulation, April 3, 2007; 115(13): e356 - e375. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 NACB WRITING GROUP MEMBERS, D. A. Morrow, C. P. Cannon, R. L. Jesse, L. K. Newby, J. Ravkilde, A. B. Storrow, A. H.B. Wu, R. H. Christenson, NACB COMMITTEE MEMBERS, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines: Clinical Characteristics and Utilization of Biochemical Markers in Acute Coronary Syndromes Clin. Chem., April 1, 2007; 53(4): 552 - 574. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. O. Adesanya, J. A. de Lemos, N. B. Greilich, and C. W. Whitten Management of perioperative myocardial infarction in noncardiac surgical patients. Chest, August 1, 2006; 130(2): 584 - 596. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Ryan, E. D. Peterson, A. Y. Chen, M. T. Roe, E. M. Ohman, C. P. Cannon, P. B. Berger, J. F. Saucedo, E. R. DeLong, S.-L. Normand, et al. Optimal Timing of Intervention in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines) Registry Circulation, November 15, 2005; 112(20): 3049 - 3057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Elsasser and C. W. Hamm Percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines: new aspects for the interventional treatment of acute coronary syndromes Eur. Heart J. Suppl., October 1, 2005; 7(suppl_K): K5 - K9. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S J Walsh, M S Spence, D Crossman, and A A J Adgey Clopidogrel in non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: an overview of the submission by the British Cardiac Society and the Royal College of Physicians of London to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and beyond Heart, September 1, 2005; 91(9): 1135 - 1140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authors/Task Force Members, S. Silber, P. Albertsson, F. F. Aviles, P. G. Camici, A. Colombo, C. Hamm, E. Jorgensen, J. Marco, J.-E. Nordrehaug, et al. Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology Eur. Heart J., April 2, 2005; 26(8): 804 - 847. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Cannon Revascularization for everyone?: reply Eur. Heart J., March 1, 2005; 26(5): 525 - 525. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. P. Cannon Revascularization for everyone?: reply Eur. Heart J., January 2, 2005; 26(2): 201 - 201. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. M. Abadie, C. L. Blassingame, and D. D. Bankson Albumin Cobalt Binding Assay to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndrome Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci., January 1, 2005; 35(1): 66 - 72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Kereiakes Adjunctive Pharmacotherapy before Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: The Role of Modulating Inflammation Circulation, October 21, 2003; 108(90161): III-22 - 27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Morrow, N. Rifai, M. S. Sabatine, S. Ayanian, S. A. Murphy, J. A. de Lemos, E. Braunwald, and C. P. Cannon Evaluation of the AccuTnI Cardiac Troponin I Assay for Risk Assessment in Acute Coronary Syndromes Clin. Chem., August 1, 2003; 49(8): 1396 - 1398. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Morrow, J. A. de Lemos, M. S. Sabatine, and E. M. Antman The Search for a Biomarker of Cardiac Ischemia Clin. Chem., April 1, 2003; 49(4): 537 - 539. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Clopidogrel Benefits a Range of ACS Risk Groups Journal Watch Cardiology, November 29, 2002; 2002(1129): 6 - 6. [Full Text]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||