Coronary Stenting for Non-Acute Coronary Disease Compared to Medical Therapy

theNNT, 2012

(NNT > NNH)" id="trafficlight" /> Check out the Explained link above for more information." id="graph" />
We're constantly monitoring the literature for updates (if you think there is something we've missed, !).
We've presented what we think is the closest thing to the truth about this intervention, but our data is only as good as the studies that underlie it — and often, the studies aren't as complete or as good as we'd like.
We present one number here for the NNT, but please realize this is an estimate and there is a range for what this intervention can offer a given person.
That range will depend upon the person's spectrum of disease (mild/moderate/severe), their demographic, their subtype of disease, the setting of the intervention, their general health, and literally thousands of other variables.
Using these numbers in practice means taking a number of large leaps about all of these variables, and also about the veracity of the underlying research.
Therefore, as with any 'high quality' data, the application of data requires a doctor's expertise and deliberate consideration.
Narrative: Percutaneous coronary interventions (typically stents) are used hundreds of thousands of times each year to open narrowed coronary arteries.
opening) as an initial approach to narrowed arteries is more beneficial than simply taking medicines to prevent future attacks or death.
Over 7000 patients with coronary narrowing were included from eight trials in which patients were randomly assigned to receive either stents plus optimal medical therapy, or optimal medical therapy alone (i.e.
The studies were generally high quality and the results appear robust, suggesting that medical therapy without stenting is as effective at preventing deaths, heart attacks, and symptoms as the placement of coronary stents.