DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017848
Yes, We Can! (Should We?)
Running title: Aversano; Yes, we can! (Should we?)
Thomas Aversano, MD
Johns Hopkins Cardiology at GBMC, Baltimore, MD
Address A ddress for Correspondence: C rr Co rresp ponden ncee: Thom om mas Aversano, Aversan anoo, MD an MD Thomas Associate Professor of Medicine Johns Hopkins Cardiology at GBMC, Suite 5104 6701 N. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21204 Tel: 410-336-5790 Fax: 443-524-9256 E-mail: [email protected] Journal Subject Codes: [24] Catheter-based coronary interventions:stents, [36] CV surgery: coronary artery disease, [100] Health policy and outcome research
Key words:Editorial, percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac surgery, healthcare policy
1 Downloaded from http://circ.ahajournals.org/ at Yale University on July 12, 2015
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017848
Historically, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was relegated to hospitals with co-located cardiac surgery because of the potential need for emergent surgical treatment of PCI-related complications. In the current issue of Circulation, Lee and colleagues1 compare outcomes of PCI at hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery and show that emergency cardiac surgery is, in fact, rarely needed (
Yes, We Can! (Should We?)
Running title: Aversano; Yes, we can! (Should we?)
Thomas Aversano, MD
Johns Hopkins Cardiology at GBMC, Baltimore, MD
Address A ddress for Correspondence: C rr Co rresp ponden ncee: Thom om mas Aversano, Aversan anoo, MD an MD Thomas Associate Professor of Medicine Johns Hopkins Cardiology at GBMC, Suite 5104 6701 N. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21204 Tel: 410-336-5790 Fax: 443-524-9256 E-mail: [email protected] Journal Subject Codes: [24] Catheter-based coronary interventions:stents, [36] CV surgery: coronary artery disease, [100] Health policy and outcome research
Key words:Editorial, percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac surgery, healthcare policy
1 Downloaded from http://circ.ahajournals.org/ at Yale University on July 12, 2015
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017848
Historically, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was relegated to hospitals with co-located cardiac surgery because of the potential need for emergent surgical treatment of PCI-related complications. In the current issue of Circulation, Lee and colleagues1 compare outcomes of PCI at hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery and show that emergency cardiac surgery is, in fact, rarely needed (
