The Myocardial Ischemia Reduction with Acute Cholesterol Lowering trial: MIRACuLous or not, it's time to change current practice

The Myocardial Ischemia Reduction with Aggressive Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) study was the first trial to assess whether statins might be of clinical benefit in those with recently unstable coronary disease. MIRACL found that high-dose atorvastatin was safe and reduced the incidence of the composite endpoint, death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, resuscitated sudden cardiac death or emergent rehospitalization for recurrent ischemia at 16 weeks when compared with placebo. Despite a number of important study limitations, MIRACL's findings and the prior observation that inpatient initiation of lipid-lowering therapy is associated with higher rates of subsequent utilization, suggest that it is prudent to begin statin therapy when patients present with an acute coronary syndrome

Acute ischemic heart disease and interventional cardiology: a time for pause

BACKGROUND: A major change has occurred in the last few years in the therapeutic approach to patients presenting with all forms of acute coronary syndromes. Whether or not these patients present initially to tertiary cardiac care centers, they are now routinely referred for early coronary angiography and increasingly undergo percutaneous revascularization. This practice is driven primarily by the angiographic image and technical feasibility. Concomitantly, there has been a decline in expectant or ischemia-guided medical management based on specific clinical presentation, response to initial treatment, and results of noninvasive stratification. This 'tertiarization' of acute coronary care has been fuelled by the increasing sophistication of the cardiac armamentarium, the peer-reviewed publication of clinical studies purporting to show the superiority of invasive cardiac interventions, and predominantly supporting (non-peer-reviewed) editorials, newsletters, and opinion pieces. DISCUSSION: This review presents another perspective, based on a critical reexamination of the evidence. The topics addressed are: reperfusion treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction; the indications for invasive intervention following thrombolysis; the role of invasive management in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina; and cost-effectiveness and real world considerations. A few cases encountered in recent practice in community and tertiary hospitals are presented for illustrative purposes The numerous and far-reaching scientific, economic, and philosophical implications that are a consequence of this marked change in clinical practice as well as healthcare, decisional and conflict of interest issues are explored. SUMMARY: The weight of evidence does not support the contemporary unfocused broad use of invasive interventional procedures across the spectrum of acute coronary clinical presentations. Excessive and unselective recourse to these procedures has deleterious implications for the organization of cardiac health care and undesirable economic, scientific and intellectual consequences. It is suggested that there is need for a new equilibrium based on more refined clinical risk stratification in the treatment of patients who present with acute coronary syndromes